Mitt's Dog Whistle Misfires

I can't help myself but comment on Mitt Romney's instantly famous remark:

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine,”

Romney was assailed for saying he doesn't care about the poor, and defended on the ground that he also said he wanted to make sure the safety net was well patched, so his remark was "taken out of context."
But I don't think Romney misspoke at all. His saying he doesn't care about the poor is actually a dog whistle to the far right, who hate the poor and think that they are coddled by welfare. But he is basically decent, too, so he added that he wants to preserve the safety net, saying that as if it's a simple item on his to-do list. In saying that, Romney dog-whistled in reverse, because the right doesn't much like the safety net, or honestly think it's counterproductive. They are also very suspect of decency. So Mitt said two things, meaning them to balance each other. But he managed to offend everyone, even the people to whom he was actually pandering.

Our Tiny Little Debt Problem

One of the oddities about the recent debt debate is the failure to recognize how small our problem is in one critical sense. While our deficits and government debts are high in absolute terms and high in relation to GDP, because interest rates are low, our debt service costs are actually quite low as well.

Going back 20 years to 1991, net interest as a percentage of federal government outlays has fluctuated between 5.0% (the low-point in 2010) and 15.4% (1996). This year, the estimated net interest expense is 6.5% of outlays, near the low end of the spectrum. As a percentage of GDP, the government’s interest expense is less at 1.6%, about as low as it has been since the 1960s. These figures, however, are expected to rise, partly due to an assumption that interest rates will rise and partly due to the rising debt level. Countries with real debt problems like Greece or Italy are required to pay interest rates that are many times the rate on U.S. treasury bonds.

But even after the projected increases, our federal debt service will remain low by historical norms. So there may be no real crisis and no reason to expect that the ratings agencies have any legitimate reason to downgrade U.S. bonds (except perhaps the government’s apparent inability to increase revenues above their historically low levels).

2 Cents on the Trillion Dollar Debt Crisis

As the debt and deficit debate proceeds towards Armageddon (or not), it seems to me that most people, even the politically aware, have checked out. That’s what I’ve been doing more or less, and why not? Even before one starts to fathom a solution, one has to decide whether it’s really a problem, or how much of a problem. Last night, president Obama said: “We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis — this one caused almost entirely by Washington. Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate.”

But Speaker Boehner responded by saying that a stopgap measure he has proposed is Obama’s creation He urged the president to sign a Republican plan to raise the debt limit. “If the president signs it,” he said, “the ‘crisis’ atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised.” Everyone says everyone else’s deal is a non-starter, full of gimmicks, and in bad faith. MSNBC viewers watch and believe something very different from Fox viewers—and it’s all based on who one believes.

Then there is the legal issue of whether Obama can simply declare the debt limit raised without any legislation at all. This argument, not uncontoversial, was offered by law professors Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule. They contend:

Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, he said that it was necessary to violate one law, lest all the laws but one fall into ruin. So too here: the president may need to violate the debt ceiling to prevent a catastrophe — whether a default on the debt or an enormous reduction in federal spending, which would throw the country back into recession.

But whether or not there is a default—or whether it can be legislated or decreed away-- the underlying debate is real, so I decided to take a look at some of the numbers, which are available in a panoply of historical tables supplied by the Office of Management and Budget

Here are some of the numbers I found interesting:

On taxes (or revenues): Since 2000, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been declining. In 2000, the government revenue as a percentage of GDP has declined from 20.6% to 14.9% in 2010. It’s tempting to blame this all on the Bush tax cuts, but that can’t be right since the decline, while starting under President Bush has ebbed and waned. By 2004, taxes as a percentage of GDP fell to 16.1%. But then they started to rise, cresting at 18.5% in 2007. This level—between 18% and 19%— is pretty standard since 1960.

But then something happened, and I am not sure why. In 2009, taxes were just 14.9% of GDP. The same was true in 2010. In 2011, the OMB estimate is 14.4%. Perhaps this is due to the “stimulus” tax cuts. But whatever the reason for the drop in revenues, historically low taxes passed under Obama and not just under Bush, are part of the deficit issue.

But spending is part of it, too. In 2000, federal government spending as a percentage of GDP was 18.2%. That figure is as low as it had been since 1966. After that, spending starter to rise. The rise to 2008— spending was 20.8% of GDP— was gradual. But in 2009, spending ballooned to 25.0% of GDP. More, OMB expects it to stay above 22% through 2016. This is higher than it ever was under Bush or Clinton.
To find spending exceeding 22.5% of GDP, one has to travel back to —surprise— President Reagan, when spending was 22.8% of GDP in 1985 (and the deficit was quite high, though only half as high in percentage terms as it is now, even as the ‘80s recession was just as bad as the current one). Also, there does not seem to be a single fiscal year since 1952 (the Korean War) when spending increased by even __ of GDP, let alone 4.3%, as it did between 2008 and 2009. In the post-war era, jumps of 1% are big.

Thus it does seem fair to say that spending in “out of control.” But taxes are out of control too, but not in the sense that they have climbed too high, but that the government has let them fall too low. All of these numbers allow a case that Obama has been somewhat incompetent as president, that he is not the only mature one, a case that David Brooks makes well today.

But to get the debt problem fixed—though it’s still an open debate as to how much of a fix is needed— there has to be a way for both sides to agree to cuts in spending and increases in taxes. If this sounds obvious, well, I guess it is.

Pity the Passengers

The Times has an op-ed about police searches of livery cab passengers. The NYCLU is on the case. But for years the routine civil rights violations of livery cab passengers has gone unremarked.

2 cents on the outer borough livery plan

I have no dog in this fight, but...

Mayor Bloomberg's plan to license a new class of taxis that would be permitted-- for the first time-- to accept street hails in the outer boroughs and northern Manhattan has passed in the state assembly. Predictably the medallion and fleet owners are scrambling. The Senate has yet to act.

Medallion owners are predicting the destruction of their industry. That may be overstating it, but they are right to attempt to protect their investments in medallions which they purchased under the existing rules for as much as $750K.

I think they have a point: When the OB liveries take a fare from Brooklyn to say 34th Street, do you think they will then head back to Brooklyn? I think they will more likely poach a Manhattan fare (something many liveries do already). To do so may be illegal. But who will stop them, especially when customers become accustomed to hailing these OB cabs?

That's the real issue as I see it. If they OB cabs were truly confined to the OBs, then it might not hurt the yellows. But even now livery cabs take illegal Manhattan street hails. Under the new plan, this could get a lot worse. And the yellow cab drivers' earnings will be undermined, with the value of the yellow medallions withing in the wake.

Also, the TLC is also building its empire here. The 30,000 OB street-hail cabs is big new opportunity for regulation.

My Outer-borough taxi solution

I wrote this as an op-ed about a month back. But it went unpublished:

In recent months, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed allowing livery cabs to accept street hails in New York City’s outer boroughs—an idea that has been broached an rejected several times over the decades. Just this week, the City Council passed a plan to increase the fines on cab drivers who refuse outer borough fares.

Both plans are designed, it is said, to improve taxi service outside of Manhattan. But both ignore the realities of the taxi industry. Any real solution must acknowledge how the taxi business works in New York: It’s a three-tier system, and yellow cabs are just one part.

The city’s 13,000 yellow taxis tend to go where the money is: Manhattan south of 96th Street and the airports. This is old hat.

Complaints about refusals are likewise commonplace. Even as someone who has defended taxi drivers accused of refusing service, I concede that it’s a real problem, though one that tends to be wildly overstated.

But the key fact is that in addition to yellow cabs there are livery cabs and black cabs. Black cabs are taxis that service employees of (mostly large) businesses through expense accounts. Livery cabs mostly service the outer boroughs. They are required to accept passengers by pre-arrangement only and may not accept street hails—though in fact many do. Given the existence of liveries—which outnumber yellow cabs—the idea that the outer boroughs have no taxi service is simply false.

The reason yellow cab drivers can be reluctant to take fares to Brooklyn or the Bronx is two-fold. Cabbies have concerns for their safety. Some of these concerns are imaginary, but some are very real: Taxi drivers are more likely to be killed on the job than police or firefighters. The second concern is economic: When a taxi does travel to an outer borough, it is likely to have to return to Manhattan empty.

Neither concern permits a cab driver to refuse, of course. But while beating up on taxi drivers may be good politics and favorite sport, it does not really address the problem.

Taxi drivers—mostly immigrants, all independent contractors—have never had much voice in corridors of power. But taxi fleet owners do. They will yell loud and long against any plan to allow livery cabs on their turf.

And the taxi owners have a point. The mayor’s plan to let liveries accept street hails would permit the dilution of their monopoly—a monopoly not granted for free, but bought and paid for. It is represented by taxi medallions, which are licenses that sell for as much as $750,000. People buy them based on what they represent: An exclusive on street hails in New York City. The medallions are leased in turn to taxi drivers for as much as $129 per shift.

While the creation of a property right to taxi licenses might not be a perfect system, it has become entrenched over decades. Owners will right fight to protect those rights. Drivers, meanwhile, will protest their loss of business—and ultimately will not be willing to pay as much to lease medallions. Over time, drivers will become less willing to leave Manhattan than ever. In short, by letting liveries take their turf, the city would have changed the deal.

There is, however, a better way: The city should give everyone who owns a medallion another license (or two or three) for free. The second license would apply to a new class of taxi that would be permitted to accept street hails outside Manhattan. This would open up yellow-cab type service in neighborhood where it exists barely or not at all. Perhaps these cabs could be painted a distinctive color of their own, say, lime green.

Permitting green cabs would, of course, dilute the value of the yellow taxi medallions. But since the owners of yellow medallions would be given the green medallions, they would be compensated for their loss. Simply letting current liveries accept street hails, by contrast, would injure the yellow cab owners without compensation.

By attaching a green license to every yellow license, the city could add thousands of cabs if that’s what it wants. And it would do so without causing a loss to those who have borrowed and saved to purchase medallions. The yellow cab industry would be much more likely to accept a plan that protects their rights. And New Yorkers far and wide would have more and better taxi service than they have now.
###

Recruiting Rewind - Who Succeeds with Success?

D1CW (http://d1collegewrestling.net) has an interesting feature by Earl Smith comparing recruiting prospects with their results for the high school class of 2006. The feature, called “Recruiting Rewind” and which can be found at http://d1collegewrestling.net/Recruiting_2006.html, reprises a similar report the site did last year for the high school class of 2005 (http://d1collegewrestling.net/Recruiting_2005.html).

The reports list the top recruits coming out of high school and the top college wrestlers five years later when nearly all the recruits would have exhausted their eligibility. There are two results of note. First for the top 20 collegians in the ’06 class, just six were top 25 recruits. Second, of the top 20 recruits, just seven had outstanding college careers. (This total counts Henry Cejudo, who skipped college, but won an Olympic gold medal.) On the other hand, nearly all the top collegians were top 100 recruits, the exceptions being Anthony Robles, who the recruiting touts may have overlooked for obvious reasons, and Stephen Dwyer of Nebraska.

It’s startling that four top-10 recruits flamed out altogether, including two that attended OK State (Jordan Frishkorn of Oklahoma State; Billy Murphy (Iowa); David Rella (Penn State); Ben Ashmore (Oklahoma State)). The number one overall recruit, David Craig of Lehigh, had some success, but the D1C1 formula, which ranks wrestlers based on their NCAA and conference tournament successes, puts him at #41 in his class. Lehigh also attracted the #12 recruit, Pat Flynn, who had little college success.

The good news for Cornell is that their top recruits all performed well, if some not quite up to their recruiting par. Mack Lewnes was ranked #7 as a recruit and he became the third most successful wrestler in his class, behind two-time NCAA champ Jordan Burroughs and Lance Palmer, who was a four-time All American and, like Lewnes, a national runner-up. Lewnes comes out ahead of Jon Readeare and his fellow NCAA champs JP O’Connor and Robles.

Mike Grey was the #3 recruit. He didn’t fare as well in college, but he did rank #16 in his class, juts behind Mike Thorn and Montell Marion.

Justin Kerber was the #22 recruit. Again, he didn’t quite wrestle up to those expectations, but he is listed as #49 in his class.

The year before, Cornell had three top-50 recruits: Troy Nickerson, Adam Frey and Curtis Roddy. Roddy disappeared, but Nickerson won a NCAA championship. Frey, of course, died tragically, but was successful before that.

I suppose the lesson is that a college program absolutely needs top recruits if it plans to succeed. Nearly all the top wrestlers were top-100 recruits, if not top-20. On the other hand, may of the bluest of blue-chippers are long forgotten. Can it be said that some programs squander top talent more than others. Certainly injuries and academic failings play a part. I am not sure whether to be surprised that so many top recruits never succeed. But it would be interesting to make a study of what programs have done most with the least or the least with the most, or which ones have seen their star high-schoolers perform closest to expectations.

Demon Cabbie Rape

Unless I am very wrong, there has never been a proven case of rape by a taxi driver against a passenger. Then why are all the New York papers reporting the alleged rape by a cabbie against a passenger that occurred last week? (Here it is on the Fox website an in the Times.)

It’s not that rape is a rare crime. According to the NYPD, there were 28 rapes last week and 489 on the year to date in the city. But only two are in the news. One is the alleged rape by a police officer, a case where the trial of the officer is winding down.

The other is a purported rape by a orange-turbaned taxi driver in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn.

Here is how the story is being reported:

Cops have released a sketch of the rogue cab driver who they say tied up and raped his passenger at knifepoint at the end of a horrific ride through Williamsburg last week.

The 26-year-old victim told police that she had spent the early part of the night celebrating Cinco de Mayo at Public Assembly on N. Sixth Street. At some point after midnight, she hailed a cab — but instead of getting a ride home, she was taken to a darkened corner of Rodney Street near S. First Street, where the cabbie allegedly pulled a knife, bound her wrists together and raped her.

He then took her cellphone and $20 before letting her go at 6 am."
So she hailed a cab "after midnight" took a five-minute ride and was "let go" at 6 AM.

Here is another particularly imaginative account:

It was a long night, with lots of drinks. You stumble into a cab, as the sunlight is just beginning to show in the distance. You’re drunk, tired and just want to get a few hours of sleep before you have to wake up for work, and you expect a hangover is inevitable.

In the back seat of the taxi, you lean back and close your eyes. You’ll wake up when you get to your apartment in a few minutes. You’ll pay the cabbie and go home. You made it home.

For many New Yorkers, this scenario is not unfamiliar. It could have been you who hailed that cabbie early Friday morning in Brooklyn. It was after 5 a.m., and you had just celebrated Cinco de Mayo at the Public Assembly bar and music venue in Williamsburg.

Are we to believe that this rape occurred over 5-6 hours?

Did she fall asleep and the cabbie waited five hours for her to wake?

But the real wonder is that the press has picked up on this story en masse, all while an untold number of other rapes go unmentioned. It shows a willingness to believe that cabbies are criminals in wait, though there is no evidence to support such hysteria.

The demon cabbie is a persistent myth. It is stoked in particular by the New York Post, which headlined its story, “Woman in cabby-rape nightmare.”

But my bet is that this crime never occurred. And if it did it’s an aberration, which the press fuels as if it were a real fear. The demon cabbie lives!

Taxi of Tomorrow: A Bad Idea Today

Last week, Mayor Bloomberg announced the winner of his “Taxi of Tomorrow” competition, the Nissan NV200, a four-door van that will become the all-but-exclusive vehicle of the city’s taxi fleet. The NYT Times story is here, but the news was reported everywhere.

A lot of people argue that Bloomberg and his aides made the wrong choice, preferring one of the other two finalists, the Ford Transit Connect or the Karsan V1. But the real problem is that Bloomberg made the choice at all. Instead, the taxi buyers should choose, with their choice guided in turn by taxi passengers.

For as long as there have been taxis in New York City, there have been a variety of automobile models serving as cabs. Many New Yorkers remember fondly the Checker cab. But Checker, which stopped production in the early 1980s, never had an exclusive. It ran alongside the Dodge Coronet, the Chevrolet Caprice, the Peugot 505 and later the Ford Crown Victoria. Today, Hondas, Isuzus, Chevrolets, Fords, and Toyotas, among others, all serve as taxis.

As a regulator the city and its Taxi and Limousine Commission have always established specifications for taxicabs and then let the cab owners buy what they preferred. Of course, neither the city nor the TLC owns a single taxi. They are all owned privately by fleets or individuals. All are operated by drivers licensed by the TLC, but not employed by the TLC. The city and the TLC sometime forget that.

Given that taxis are privately owned and operated, it is very odd indeed for Mayor Bloomberg, one of the nations most successful capitalists, to order that every taxi owner buy the make and model car of his government’s choosing. It is as if the Securities and Exchange Commission held a contest to determine the best financial information terminal—and then required that every brokerage firm use the one it liked best. Somehow, I don’t think Bloomberg the businessman would cotton to this idea.

A lot of people who have weighed in think the city should have chosen an American company, Ford. Others rallied behind Karsan, which, while Turkish, said it would build its cabs in Brooklyn.

But the problem is not that the city chose badly, it’s that it should not be choosing. If Karsan makes an acceptable taxi, it should be an option for taxi buyers. The same is true of Ford—or Toyota, or Mercedes or Chevrolet. Cab owners will certainly have the best sense of what car models work best under the stress of being driven 12 or 24 hours a day, and of what design or designs taxi passengers prefer. If they are wrong, they can try another model—but not if the Nissan is the only choice. Of course, with an exclusive right to sell, Nissan will have buyers over a barrel.

The City Charter states that the TLC can regulate “standards for equipment safety and design.” But it says nothing about mandating a particular design. That’s not just the law: It’s also a good idea.

Just recently, the city tried to require (first directly then indirectly) that all taxis achieve a certain minimum miles per gallon. These efforts were held illegal by federal courts because it only the federal government, not municipalities, is allowed to regulate auto mileage. But now the city is turning around and deciding not just mileage, but shape, styling, and every aspect the taxi design—right down to the seat-coatings and the sound of the horn. It’s hard to see how this draconian top-down design command will pass muster.

But even if it’s legal, the “Taxi of Tomorrow” is a bad idea today.

Capturing Bin Laden

I am glad the U.S. forces killed Osama Bin Laden. I also feel a bit foolish because I have for years thought Bin Laden was already dead. Al Quaeda had every reason to downplay his death-- better to keep his dubious legend alive. The U.S. would have had its own reasons. Turns out he really was alive, though, not to be a deather, where are the photos of the body?

I also have a few questions about the news reports.

1. They say that the U.S. got the nickname of OBL's courier from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? But how could that be. Have these prisoners been locked up for five-to-ten years? So how would they know who was carrying the messages for OBL, nickname or otherwise.

2. The compound is said to be eight times larger than the other homes in the area. But the satlellite photos show that is not true. http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/may2011/9/0/osama-bin-laden-compound-in-abbottabad-pic-googlemaps-222924567.jpg It's bigger,but not eight times bigger.

3. The compound is said to be priced at $1 million. Really? I know nothing about Pakistani real estate, but the place looks like a dump. http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-wld-110502-compound1-4a.grid-6x2.jpg. I doubt it would fetch $1 million in a Toledo or Detroit (except for the best suburbs of those cities.

4. All that said, if OBL was really hiding in an oversized house close to Pakistani military installations, how could people not have asked and found out who was living there?

World Cup in the USA

The group seeking to get the U.S. selected as World Cup hosts in 2018 or 2022 is well-financed and well-connected. It has many official partners, some well-known like Fox Sports, some more obscure, like Latham and Watkins, a law firm. But like most boosters, it is effectively trying to get the nation to host a huge party that the government will wind up paying for.

Here is how the game is played, as summarized by a Freakonomics entry, which summarizes in turn the research of economist Dennis Coates:

As it seems the U.S. is going hellbent for leather trying to land an upcoming World Cup, he wants to get ahead of the cheerleading to make clear how the economics will actually play out. His new paper, “World Cup Economics: What Americans Need to Know about a US World Cup Bid,” is an attempt to challenge “the rosy assumptions being made by U.S. bid leaders, and I hope it will force proponents to be more forthcoming with answers about what we can really expect from a U.S. World Cup.”

Coates’s central claim:

Despite bid organizers’ claims, the World Cup won’t be a boon for the American economy; in fact, it will likely cost the United States billions of dollars in lost economic impact. For example, economic estimates in support of the 1994 U.S. World Cup were later shown by economists to have been off by up to $14 billion. Far from having a positive economic impact, the last World Cup we hosted, a so-called major success, had a negative impact on the average U.S. host city of $712 million. Yet no one is discussing these figures despite the current economic troubles we face. … Few analysts who aren’t in the employ of the event boosters have ever found such events to pay for themselves in a purely dollars and cents view.

The recently completed South Africa World Cup is hardly an exception, with the bulk of the trouble lying in the gap between optimistic projected costs and actual costs:

The proposed budget for the 2010 games was about $225 million for stadiums and $421 million overall. Expenses have far exceeded those numbers. Reported stadium expenses jumped from the planned level of $225 million to $2.13 billion, and overall expenses jumped similarly from $421 million to over $5 billion.

And don’t forget the “ruins of modern Greece” — i.e., the abandoned facilities from the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. You think Greece might be feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse about now?

Of course the sponsors benefit. But why does the U.S. allow them to shoulder the rest of us with the costs.

For TLC being 12% Correct is Good Enough

Seven weeks ago, the TLC announced that more than 35,000 taxi drivers had "scammed" passengers on 1.8 million trips for a total of $8.3 million.

Today, the TLC posted revised numbers: Now it's 21,819 taxicab drivers, 286,000 trips and a total of "almost $1.1 million." Industry observers--such as me--immediately noted that the TLC's original claims were impossible to believe. Sure enough, the TLC itself quickly admitted it was not sure what the numbers were. The buffoonish former TLC Chairman Matthew Daus indeed accused the press of jumping the gun, when all the reporters did was repeat the TLC's press release. It's reminds one of the athlete who claimed to be misquoted in his own autobiography.

Today, the new TLC Chairman David Yassky refused to apologize or even admit error for his massive slur on taxi drivers. It admitted today that, by its new accounting, 13,315 out of the 21,819 drivers, engaged in overcharging just one or two times.

The TLC indicates it will seek license revocation for the worst offenders. I suppose the charges, if proved, merit the sanction. Most likely, the TLC will browbeat many drivers into surrendering their licenses, threatening them with huge fines and criminal prosecutions. But the TLC has said it will seek the penalties in Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, a citywide tribunal, rather than bringing the charges in its kangaroo TLC Court. Of course, the TLC has been very wrong before. The tribunal and the history should, one hopes, give drivers willing to make a defense a fighting chance.

Taxi Gougers

Today the NY Times is running a page one story called

"New York Cabs Gouged Riders Out of Millions"

I really doubt this gouging happened on anything like the scale the TLC suggests. If riders were overcharged on "more than 1.8 million trips," certainly there would have been, say, 1800 actual complaints (that is one out of one THOUSAND fares). But the TLC does not report even a single complaint. (Even in the notorious recent Cheema case, there was NO passenger complaint!) And under TLC rules, even a $10 overcharge merits license revocation. Yet there are few if any actual prosecutions.

Maybe the TLC doesn't know how to read the data. That seems more likely as the agency is staffed by mostly incompetents, including and especially outgoing commissioner Daus.

Also: The math doesn't work at all:

"The scam was primarily perpetrated by a small number of drivers, with 3,000 of them overcharging more than 100 times, the agency said."

3000 x 125 [more than 100] = 375,000

Yet in the very next sentence, the article claims: "1.8 million overcharged trips."

There is a 1.4 million trip disparity!


More troubling is the exchange between the Bhairavi Desai of the Taxi Worker's Alliance [full disclosure I have reperesented the TWA on other issues] and Daus:

The taxi industry vigorously challenged the city's findings, saying it was unimaginable that such a pervasive problem could be the result of deliberate fraud. The city said that 35,558 out of the city's roughly 48,000 drivers had applied the higher rate.

This is clearly a systematic failure on the part of the meters and the technology, said Bhairavi Desai, the executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, which represents cabbies.

For this to be so widespread --nearly every single driver -- makes no sense, she added.

The taxi commission refused to comment on the alliance's claim, citing its continuing investigation. "We have to sort through the numbers," Mr. Daus said.

If the TLC is still "sorting through" the numbers, why go public?

The TLC is just not a trustworthy source, and the story is basically a rewrite of a TLC release issued late on a Friday afternoon. The Times should really check this stuff out first.

Giuliani's Dark Side

Yesterday's news that Rudoplh Giuliani would not be running for governor takes me back. While Giuliani certainly deserves credit for his record as a prosecutor and as a mayor, he will always be, in addition, a 9/11 profiteer and a gutless bully. I had personal experience with his domineering ways towards NYC taxi driviers, which I wrote about for Slate in
Operation RefusalGiuliani's sorry crackdown on New York City's taxi drivers and saw in his craven deposition testimony, a bit of which can be seen on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ8rnhi1kqU

Is New Jersey the most corrupt state?

Since the FBI takedown of public officials, the national press and indeed the world press has fallen all over the story. The press reports are typically confused and confusing, with accounts talking about "the case" or even two linked "schemes." The NY Times report is a case in point. Gail Collins' column today takes some cheap, mildly amusing shots, much too easy for a writer of her talents..

In fact, there is no "scheme," no link between the various indicted politicians, and nothing at all linking the pols withe the rabbis. The massive one-day arrest was pure theater by the FBI and the US Attorney, not a law enforcement imperative. It worked-- the case made the papers even in Australia. Politicians from Gov. Corzine on down joined the band wagon, denouncing the accused and the level of political debauchery in general.

This case also presents no real evidence of pervasive corruption in the Garden State. First of all, most of the pols are pretty small time. The biggest fish is Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano. But Hoboken is a city of 38,577, really just a small town, given some prominence by its proximity to Manhattan. Would anyone care if the mayor of a town of 38,000 in Iowa or Connecticut was arrested?

The story has legs because it fits the Sopranos-inspired narrative of New Jersey as especially and hopelessly corrupt. Maybe it is, but these cases-- linked only by the "cooperating witness," Solomon Dwek (rhymes with "dreck")-- don't show it. Dwek posed as a crooked real estate developer eager to grease palms to get his projects approved. But the people he bribed for the most part had no individual authority to grant or even speed approvals. They were mostly legislators with indirect influence at most.

Worse, there is nothing in the reports saying he had any projects to approve. Even if the evidence of bribery holds up, all it shows is some would-be developer seeking vague favors for some hypothetical projects. This is hardly a fundamental subversion of government.

Maybe the evidence will show a propensity for corruption on the part of those indicted. But how many officials turned Dwek away? We'd need to know that before registering any conclusion about the level of corruption in New Jersey. I'd be much more impressed if there was an allegation (let alone evidence) of one scheme in which a politician actually did something in exchange for a bribe. Did a real estate project get approved that should not have been approved? Did anyone even put a project on the fast track for approval?

Nothing like that is charged. Until it is, we'll have to wait for evidence that New Jersey is as corrupt as we'd all like to believe.

FBI, Arrests, and Money Laudering

I am listening to the U.S. Attorney from New Jersey press conference on the political corruption and "money laundering" arrest of 30-plus individuals including the mayor of Hoboken and the Jersey City City Council president. It smells a bit, and not for the reasons intended.

First, there seems to be no real link between the money laundering rabbi and the allegedly corrupt politicians, except that one cooperating witness seems to be involved with all of them. If that is the case, why does the U.S. Attorney and the FBI take them down (as the call it) at the same time. Is it just to generate headlines? If there is any law enforcement rationale, it's hard to follow what it is.

As to money laundering, this is a dubious crime in general. But as I understand it, money laundering generally involves someone who has a lot of cash (often from illegal activities, but not necessarily) exchanging that cash for less suspicious assets, whether real estate, securities, or bank accounts. But in this case, the cooperating witness would bring a check to the rabbis and get cash back. That sound like cashing a check; money laundering in reverse. Why is the FBI worrying about this at all?

Final Four: College Teams vs. All-Star Teams

The teams facing off in this weekend’s Final Four differ in style. But they differ more in make-up: Michigan State and Villanova are built like college squads; North Carolina and Connecticut look more like all-star teams.

Michigan State and Villanova attained their elite status by mining local and nearby talent. Those schools’ rosters include 22 of 28 players (79%) either from in-state or from neighboring states.
Villanova boasts two players from Pennsylvania and another six from New York, New Jersey and Maryland. Michigan State is even more home grown with nine Michiganders and five from Ohio, Minnesota and Wisconsin. In other words their teams look something like the university’s student bodies, in geography, if not in ability or height.

UConn and North Carolina are built differently. Just 16 of 33 players (48%) on their rosters are from in-state or neighboring states. Connecticut has star players from Alabama and Tanzania (Stanley Robinson and Hasheem Thabeet). Carolina imports its stars from Missouri and New York (Tyler Hansborough and Danny Green). Its roster does have six in-state players, but they are all bench warmers. Connecticut at least has A.J. Price and Jeff Adrien from nearby New York and Massachusetts.

It’s certainly true that the huge success enjoyed by North Carolina and Connecticut in the past has enabled them to recruit far and wide. And its no coincidence that these teams are number one seeds and are favored to make it to the finals. But wouldn’t be nice if being from a place, whether Michigan or Philadelphia, was actually reflected by the players. North Carolina has its state on its jersey, but its players are bussed in from far and wide.

Here are the rosters for the Final Four Teams:

NO NAME POS WT CLASS HOMETOWN
2 Donnell Beverly G 190 Sophomore Hawthorne, CA distant state
10 Johnnie Bird G 165 Senior Fort Bragg, NC distant state
11 Jerome Dyson G 190 Junior Potomac, MD distant state
21 Stanley Robinson F 210 Junior Birmingham, AL distant state
30 Scottie Haralson G 215 Freshman Jackson, MS distant state
32 Jonathan Mandeldove C 240 Junior Stone Mountain, GA distant state
33 Gavin Edwards F 234 Junior Gilbert, AZ distant state
34 Hasheem Thabeet C 263 Junior Dar Es Salaam, distant state
55 Kyle Bailey G 170 Sophomore Lancaster, NH distant state
13 Alex Hornat F 205 Junior South Windsor, CT in-state
24 Craig Austrie G 176 Senior Stamford, CT in-state
40 Jim Veronick F 200 Senior Durham, CT in-state
44 John Lindner F 265 Senior Cheshire, CT in-state
4 Jeff Adrien F 243 Senior Brookline, MA neighboring state
12 A.J. Price G 181 Senior Amityville, NY neighboring state
15 Kemba Walker G 172 Freshman Bronx, NY neighboring state


MICHIGAN STATE

0 Idong Ibok C 260 Senior Lagos, Nigeria Distant state
3 Chris Allen G 205 Sophomore Lawrenceville, GA distant state
1 Kalin Lucas G 180 Sophomore Sterling Heights, MI in-state
13 Austin Thornton G 210 Freshman Sand Lake, MI in-state
14 Goran Suton C 245 Senior Lansing, MI in-state
15 Durrell Summers G 195 Sophomore Detroit, MI in-state
20 Mike Kebler G 200 Sophomore Okemos, MI in-state
23 Draymond Green F 235 Freshman Saginaw, MI in-state
25 Jon Crandell F 225 Junior Rochester, MI in-state
40 Tom Herzog C 240 Sophomore Flint, MI in-state
41 Marquise Gray F 235 Senior Flint, MI in-state
2 Raymar Morgan F 225 Junior Canton, OH neighboring state
5 Travis Walton G 190 Senior Lima, OH neighboring state
10 Delvon Roe F 225 Freshman Euclid, OH neighboring state
22 Isaiah Dahlman G 200 Junior Braham, MN neighboring state
34 Korie Lucious G 170 Freshman Milwaukee, WI neighboring state


NORTH CAROLINA
4 Bobby Frasor G 210 Senior Blue Island, IL distant state
5 Ty Lawson G 195 Junior Clinton, MD distant state
11 Larry Drew II G 180 Freshman Encino, CA distant state
14 Danny Green G-F 210 Senior North Babylon, NY distant state
21 Deon Thompson F 245 Junior Torrance, CA distant state
22 Wayne Ellington G 200 Junior Wynnewood, PA distant state
44 Tyler Zeller F 220 Freshman Washington, IN distant state
50 Tyler Hansbrough F 250 Senior Poplar Bluff, MO distant state
2 Marc Campbell G 175 Junior Wilmington, NC in-state
13 Will Graves G-F 245 Sophomore Greensboro, NC in-state
15 J.B. Tanner G 185 Senior Hendersonville, NC in-state
24 Justin Watts G 205 Freshman Durham, NC in-state
30 Jack Wooten G 190 Senior Burlington, NC in-state
40 Mike Copeland F 235 Senior Winston-Salem, NC in-state
1 Marcus Ginyard G-F 220 Senior Alexandria, VA neighboring state
32 Ed Davis F 215 Freshman Richmond, VA neighboring state
35 Patrick Moody F 195 Senior Asheville, NC neighboring state



VILLANOVA
1 Scottie Reynolds G 195 Junior Herndon, VA distant state
4 Jason Colenda G 205 Junior Fairfax, VA distant state
23 Russell Wooten F 210 Junior Chula Vista, CA distant state
42 Frank Tchuisi F 215 Senior Douala, Cameroon distant state
15 Reggie Redding G 205 Junior Philadelphia, PA in-state
20 Shane Clark F 205 Senior Philadelphia, PA in-state
0 Antonio Pena F 235 Sophomore Brooklyn, NY neighboring state
10 Corey Fisher G 185 Sophomore Bronx, NY neighboring state
21 Maurice Sutton F-C 215 Freshman Upper Marlboro, MD neighboring state
22 Dwayne Anderson G-F 215 Senior Silver Spring, MD neighboring state
24 Corey Stokes G 195 Sophomore Bayonne, NJ neighboring state
33 Dante Cunningham F 230 Senior Silver Spring, MD neighboring state

Barack Obama and the College Football Playoffs

Barack Obama said on "60 Minutes" that he knows of no serious fan of college football who is against a playoff system. Well, I suppose we've never met, but a playoff would ruin college football and would not even add fairness.

The way the system works now, the only way a team can assure itself a shot at the national championship is to win all its games. Lose one, a team may still have a chance. Lose two: no chance. This system means that every game is critical, including the games early in the year. In the NFL, by contrast, a team can lose its first game and its second, and few more, and still make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. In other words, every team has four or five games it can easily afford to lose.

In the college game as it stands, every week is do or die. It's as if the entire season were the playoffs. Sure a team one-loss teams like USC or Florida can argue it is better now than undefeated Texas Tech or Alabama. But if USC is so good, it should not have lost to Oregon State this year or Stanford last year. But when every team knows it has to win every week, then the entire season is like a playoff. And that's what makes every game exciting-- unlike the pros.

Also, why is it more important-- and more a sign of quality-- to win the last week of the season as compared to the first. An inferior team can get lucky or have a good day and win the playoffs, especially when it's a one game playoff. A team that wins every week (or every week but one) is not just lucky, it's good and it has earned its championship.

Is Africa a continent or a country? Discuss

Here is Sarah Palin defending herself in today's Times:

'I remember having a discussion with a couple of debate preppers,' she said. 'So if it came from one of those debate preppers, you know, that’s curious. But having a discussion about Nafta — not, "Oh my goodness, I don’t know who is a part of Nafta."'

'So, no, I think that if there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about Nafta, and about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context,' Ms. Palin said. 'And that’s cruel and it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature, it’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks, if they came away with it taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news. It is not fair and not right.'

If our culture, even our political culture, were not so celebrity obsessed, no one would even be discussing whether Palin might be able to "rehabilitate herself" or whether seh might someday be ready for national office. Any adult who needs a debate prepper to discuss "the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there" would otherwise be ruled out.

Whether or not she asked for the clothes or kept the clothes, whether or not she was a diva, Palin's idea that she, despite her ignorance, might be somehow qualified for high office bepeaks a sense of entitlement that's off the charts.

Fortunately, Palin seems to be cementing her status as a national joke. Her real goal, not actually denied, seems to be a talk show gig. But she may even be too dumb for that.

The Real Media Bias: Closer than You Think

Anyone who's ever watched a football game on television (or any othe sport) should be familiar with announcers who keep pointing out the path by which the losing team can come back. The Cowboys may be down 15 points with five minutes left but stay tuned because they only need two scores plus a two-point conversion to tie. Not only is a comeback a good story, it keeps the eyeballs on the ads.

So it goes with debate and campaign coverage. As I watched the debate last night, I though Obama clearly won. And he's way ahead in the race. But everyone on CNN was saying that it was McCain's best night, that he was the aggressor, yada, yada, yada, even if it may not have been a game changer-- at least until the polls showed that American saw Obama winniing big. When David Gergen said that McCain is really out of options, the other folks on st laughed because Gergen is really not supposed to say that.

The media's real bias is not left or right, it's to hype the story. Nothing in the news is as important as it seems to be when you are watching it. (Also true of life, by the way.) Thus all campaign coverage must be viewed with the knowledge that the TV networks want -- need -- viewers to think this is stlll anyone's game.