WAITER SAVES WOMAN from the worst blind date ever:

Colt Haugen, a 22-year-old student at the University of Colorado and waiter at Ruby Tuesday, was working at the restaurant last month when he saw a man pull a pill from his pocket and put it in his date’s glass when the woman got up from the table. “I almost dropped the food I was holding. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing,” Haugen says. “I talked with the manager. I told her, I said, ‘I saw this plain as day. And if we don’t do something about this, something’s going to happen to this woman.'” The police were called and when the drink was tested, it was found to contain Valium. Nancy McGrath, the woman at the table, was on a blind date and considers Haughen to be an “angel.” “He saved my life,” she says.

A few months ago, I got an attack of vertigo in a bar, so bad that I couldn’t walk. (It happens every few months) As I staggered out of the bar, having to stop and put my head between my legs every few steps in order to overcome the waves of nausea, I dimly realized that the friends I was with (both male), were informing everyone in the bar that I had vertigo. When I stopped being so sick, some hours later, I started being embarassed; I must, I thought, have looked like I was vilely, humiliatingly drunk. Was it very embarassing, I asked one friend.

“It wasn’t because you looked drunk,” he said; “You looked like the roofies had kicked in too soon.”

Thank god for interested bystanders.

LIKE MOST IRISH-AMERICANS, I have a sort of vague sentimental notion that the conversion of Ireland to an English-speaking nation is a linguistic and cultural tragedy. Like most Irish-Americans, I also would not want to actually live in a non-English-speaking nation. What I really want is to have learned Irish from my Grandmother, and be able to impress friends by ordering drinks in my ancestral tongue while on holiday. This is the sort of thing that makes my Irish friends complain–justly–that Irish-Americans would really like to see the whole country preserved as a sort of Colonial Williamsburg with shamrocks and twee wool caps.

This is not just a question for the Irish. Language Log is meditating on how we should feel more generally about linguistic loss:

Serious questions about the benefits (and perhaps the losses) of having an assortment of distinct native languages within one national society should be addressed through research that objectively determines and assesses the effects, not through emotional appeals to imagined cultural riches not vouched for by the language users themselves, or self-serving demands that aboriginal tongues be kept alive (by poor people) for (comparatively wealthy) linguists to study.

Something like half the world’s languages are supposed to go extinct in the next century. I find it hard to believe that the bad outweighs the good here–it is a good thing that more of the world’s people will be able to communicate with each other. Still, with each language that dies, something goes out of the world that can never be rekindled.

EVEN IF I WEREN’T A (TEMPORARY) VEGAN, I’d think almond milk in my coffee was pretty delicious. It has about as many calories as 1% milk, it’s creamy–not like nasty soy or rice concoctions, which are good only for baking–and it tastes deliciously of almonds. A huge improvement over hyper-sweet syrups (and if you like it sweet, just add your own sugar or Splenda.) After Lent ends, this is one innovation I’ll keep.

KERRY HOWLEY has Fun With Singaporean National Archives:

I think the message here is that if you keep having children with empty, improbably round eye sockets, you should probably consider tubal ligation. On a more uplifting note, we really need more billboards reminding us that we’re just a few days removed from total annihilation.

Every time I hear someone refer to Singapore as quasi-Fascist, I kind of cringe and think “Do we really need to drop the F bomb here?” Then I see things like this, and I begin to think yes, yes we do . . .

LAST WEEK I argued that no one actually thinks their own taxes are too low. Laura at 11D says she’s willing to pay higher taxes:

Megan McArdle had a post up last week about whether or not people willingly pay taxes. (link when I’m not so tired). I’m willing to pay the higher taxes in New Jersey. I’m getting things for that money — better schools, a home that holds its value, access to better paying jobs, proximity to New York City, access to grandparents. Taxes aren’t always about money for other people; it’s also about services for you.

The first question is “higher than what?” New Jersey taxes are lower than those in New York City, which Laura moved out of. Higher than Alabama? Even if she weren’t particularly willing to pay them, she wouldn’t have much choice, because her husband’s job is tied to New York’s financial services industry. In that sense, I am willing to pay the higher taxes of the United States in order to avoid living as a stateless person in some refugee camp somewhere, but that’s not really a very helpful guide to how I feel about the general level of my taxes.

Does Laura think that her property taxes should be raised? Very few people do . . . and those who do seek an increase in their property taxes are almost always looking to fund large increases in spending on the services they use, like the schools, in the knowledge that many of the people who do not use them will be forced to kick in. This goes to the heart of the argument I heard over and over again: that it’s perfectly rational to think that you should pay higher taxes, but only if other people do, because taxation is somehow a collective action problem. A collective action problem, if you’re not familiar with the term, is one where there is a potential equilibrium that makes everyone better off, but it’s hard to get to because of incentives to defect. Think casual Fridays: most people prefer not to wear suits and ties, but unless there’s some sort of enforcement mechanism, the hyperambitious will ruin it for everyone by showing up in a suit. Next thing you know, everyone’s back in a Brooks Brothers sweat sack, because they don’t want to look less serious about their job than those around them. These problems generally require the creation of some enforcement mechanism–including, but not limited to, a formal law–to punish defectors.

Henry Farrell, for example, compared paying taxes to shopping at Wal-Mart. Far be it from me to criticize anyone who sends me free books, but this does not really work. Leave aside my questions about whether people really prefer downtowns to Wal-Marts, which is hard to agree upon empirically–I say I care deeply about poverty in Africa, but if that’s true, how come I bought a new iPod instead of sending the money to Chad? Collective action problems generally apply to situations where the outcome is binary: either you have a Wal-Mart nearby, or you don’t. Tax revenue is not binary–it’s an upward sloping line. Some of the things the government spends the money on are binary–but given the existing level of tax revenues, this is simply not a reasonable objection to sending the government additional money. People who say they want higher taxes on themselves generally think the government does not have enough money to do the things it is already doing; as long as you think the government has a better (in some moral sense) use for the money than you do, then you have a moral obligation to send it in.

(As an aside, I am afraid that Henry made a common mistake in referring to me as an economist. I am but a lowly MBA, and have never claimed otherwise, but for some reason a lot of my readers are confused.)

But most people do not appear to think that the government (or anyone else) has a morally salient better use for their money than they do; otherwise, they would give that money to the government (which will take it even if there is no “tax me more” fund) or charity. Perhaps you’ll argue that people’s norms about fairness are so strong that they will not give away their money unless other people do. My response would be to ask: is the unfairness of your paying more than other similarly affluent people greater or smaller than the distributional unfairness that you want the government to rectify? Nor is it plausible to believe that you can, by withholding your extra contribution, force other people to kick into the kitty; your contribution is a drop in the budget of any political entity to which you belong.

[Gotcha! You cry. My money alone won’t make a difference! Sorry, but if that were true then you’d be morally justified in cheating on your taxes. The small sum you send them is spent on something you presumably think we need more of.]

Or you might argue that since money is a positional good, it’s not reasonable to ask you to reduce your income unless everyone else at the same level does, too. So now positional goods races are an acceptable way to spend your life? So important that they should override your moral concerns about distributional justice?

Perhaps you claim that you don’t want to send the government extra money because God knows what they’ll spend it on. Well, welcome to the libertarian movement. Your subscription to Reason should arrive in four to six weeks.

No, I simply cannot grant that people really believe that they pay too little in taxes. It seems more like they think the government has a better use for everyone else’s money, and should therefore take it. They believe this so strongly that if they have to pay some of their own money to rectify the situation, they will do so. In other words, they don’t so much want higher taxes on themselves, as to purchase the good “State coercion of other affluent people”. That is not the same moral intuition as “I have too much money, and the government should take it away”, however much nicer it would be if that were true.

These objections might hold if we were attempting to establish a tax system from scratch, against a background of no previous taxation. If the number of potential taxpayers were small enough, you might then convincingly argue that you need to withhold your taxes until everyone else pays in in order to avoid the free rider problem. But against the background of our current, already extremely large and well-funded tax system, no one who actually thinks that their taxes are too low has much of an excuse for refusing to fork over.

READERS who have questions about the Times’ McCain story–like “Huh?”–can apparently email them to the editors:

A recent New York Times article examined a number of decisions by Senator John McCain that raised questions about his judgment over potential conflicts of interest. The article included reporting on Mr. McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee led by Mr. McCain. Since publication of the article, The Times has received over 2,000 comments, many of them criticizing the handling of the article. Editors and reporters who worked on the article will be answering questions on Friday. Please send yours to .

Thanks to Tom Maguire for the tip.

NOT THOROUGHLY TIRED OF DEBATE-BLOGGING YET? Well, for all two of you, Divided We Stand has live-blogged the live-bloggers.

WHO YOU CALLING A PLAGIARIST? During the debate, Dan Drezner suggested to me over IM that Hillary Clinton was plagiarizing Primary Colors. He backs it up on his own blog:

Hillary Clinton, February 21, 2008 debate with Barack Obama: “You know, lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.”

Hillary Clinton, later on in the same debate: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”

Jack Stanton speech, in Primary Colors (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 162: “Y’know, I’ve taken some hits in this campaign. It hasn’t been easy for me, or my family. It hasn’t been fair, but it hasn’t been anything compared to the hits a lot of you take every day.”

Meanwhile, Chris Beam at Slate picks up on another instance:

Hillary, however, pivots in a way that evokes, of all things, her Diner Sob. Only this time, she sets herself up: “People often ask me, ‘How do you do it? How do you keep going?’ ” That’s the exact same question asked by Marianne Pernold Young at the Café Espresso in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on the eve of the primary. Clinton then goes into a colorful anecdote about a medical center filled with people injured in Iraq. She doesn’t exactly tear up, but it’s a deliberately emotional moment. (We see Chelsea looking teary afterwards.)

At the very end, she borrows a line that John Edwards used toward the end of his campaign. “We’re going to be fine,” she said, referring to herself and Obama. (Edwards always said it about himself and Elizabeth.) “I just hope we can say the same thing about the American people.”

HILLARY CLINTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS

The emerging consensus: this was a good debate for Hillary Clinton . . . but not good enough. I think she probably picked up a lot of votes with that closing speech, but getting more votes in Ohio and Texas will not be enough; she needs to get nearly all of them.

Obviously, I’m not a Hillary supporter. But now I have that feeling of sympathy that often wells up when an opponent is defeated; once we can afford to be generous once they are no longer much of a threat. And one can hang one’s hat on the fact that she was possibly undone simply by bad timing. Not having been much of a primary hound the last time around, I’ve been repeatedly struck by how path dependent this all seems to be. If the primaries had been run in a different order, mightn’t she have emerged as the front runner . . . and wouldn’t that be a pretty bitter thought for any of us to live with?

DEBATE LIVEBLOGGING Over at my place, if you like that sort of thing. The Economist’s American blog is also doing a great one. Also, the Corner, Matthew Yqlesias

Update More liveblogging from Josh Marshall , Stephen Green and The American Spectator

IT’S NOT JUST A GOOD IDEA . . . IT’S THE LAW Over at concurring opinions, Daniel Solove interviews the creators of Battlestar Galactica about the legal and philosophical issues in the series.

IF you live in the Rochester area, and have any interest in seeing me on television, apparently they’ll be running clips from an interview with me on the ABC affiliate at 6 and 11.

A MOB IS STORMING THE US EMBASSY IN BELGRADE. They’re mad about the Kosovo independence vote. Even destroying the vital US ornamental shrubbery installations cannot break our steely will, nor silence the voice of Kosovar freedom . . .

CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN CHAOS? FOXNews offers confirming evidence for what I’ve been saying for months:

If American voters were casting their ballot today, Democrat Barack Obama would have a slight advantage over Republican John McCain in the race for the White House, while McCain would narrowly edge out Hillary Clinton, according to the latest FOX News poll.

Meanwhile, The Huffington Post paints a dark portrait of the Clinton Texas operation:

Although the Clinton Campaign has been telling the press that they have the ground operations to pull off a win in Texas, those ground operations have not been in evidence when I’ve traveled to small towns to see how Bill Clinton is doing on the Texas stump. Wednesday evening in Victoria, down in the southeastern part of the state, incipient chaos threatened to overwhelm the “Early Vote” Rally precisely because there was no ground operation. The well-oiled, beautifully constructed state-level HRC campaign machine, focused and determined in Iowa, Nevada and California, is beginning to break down.

“It’s a clusterfuck! Just a clusterfuck!” the Corpus Christi producer for a local news affiliate shouts into his cell phone. He’s telling his boss that there will be no coverage of Bill Clinton’s visit to Victoria for the 6 o’clock news. “Who’s running this campaign anyway?” the producer asks, of no one in particular. “And now five hundred people have stomped away mad.” He shakes his head. At that moment, twenty well-dressed elderly and middle-aged dignitaries and politicians exit the back of the local arts center and walk slowly for the intersection of Goodwin and Main. Presumably, they are Hillary Clinton supporters; however, given their dazed faces, they look more like commissars who have been turned out by the NKVD and cannot believe how suddenly their fortunes have changed.

On the other hand, I didn’t think she could win in New York. On the third hand, perhaps she wouldn’t have, if she’d been playing against the varsity. At any rate, it certainly doesn’t sound good.

MORE ON MCCAIN from my comments section (yes, if you want to comment on one of my posts here, you can go do it at my blog):

I spent some forty years working under FCC regulation, and it’s clearly not unreasonable to ask for help in moving the commission along.

They have been better or worse depending on the chairman at the time, but there is an incredible tendency to simply not take action if there is a real decision to make.

This is compounded by the deterioration in the quality of commission staff, now totally dominated by lawyers, many of whom fail to have even a elementary grasp of the technology they are supposed to regulate, and the poor quality of recent political appointees to the commission. By ‘recent’ I mean the last twenty years; I would indict both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

LESSIG IS MORE Julian Sanchez interviews Larry Lessig regarding a possible run for Congress:

One simple means of reducing the political power of campaign cash, Lessig says, “could be done tomorrow.” He wants to ban legislative earmarks, those juicy morsels of targeted federal funding legislators direct toward pet projects and political supporters. Lessig also hopes to encourage more robust public financing of campaigns, noting the salutary effect such policies appear to be having in states like Maine and Arizona. Most immediately—and perhaps most radically—Lessig says he will swear off contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, and he hopes to bring grassroots pressure to bear on other candidates to follow suit. (Prospective opponent Jackie Speier, he notes in passing in his online video, does accept such contributions.)

Larry Lessig and I do not see eye to eye on many issues, but one certainly can’t object to the prospect of more serious thinkers, and fewer professional politicians, in Congress. And earmark reform, however trivial its fiscal impact, is indisputably a blow for better government.

THE MAKE UP FOR REAL MEN

I’m going to be interviewed today by satellite for a Rochester-area station; the subject is my Atlantic article on what happens to America when the baby boomers retire, which was partially set in my mother’s hometown in western New York State. In the process of setting the details of who does my makeup (answer: me), Evan Dawson, who will be interviewing me, sent this observation about life in the glamorous world of television news:

As an aside, the first time your girlfriend asks to borrow your bronzer, it’s embarrassing. The second time, not so much. The third, and you begin to wonder if you could make a fortune by inventing “Cover Guy” to compete with the heretofore monopolizing “Cover Girl.”

HUNTING MENGELE’S MEMORY IN PARAGUAY My colleague Graeme Wood has a terrific piece in the Smart Set.

OH, GOD . . . I’m not sure if “thanks” is quite the word for the reader who offered me a concrete visual to go with my metaphor about the demise of the Clinton campaign.

THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR asks the hard questions: “The NRA and the ACLU both can’t buy ad time in the days before an election because doing so, by virtue of the ethical senator’s own philosophy, is manipulating the people and hurting democracy. But when McCain hops a flight with a campaign contributor, it ought to be obvious that he’s maintaining his integrity. Why is it that associations comprised of every day citizens are suspect, but a powerful politician is not?”

“PERSONALLY, I don’t see anything wrong with a senator doing to a lobbyist what the lobbyists do to the rest of us.” As Glenn himself would say, heh.

On a more serious note, Mark Kleiman links to the AP story, which has more detail on what, exactly, McCain is supposed to have done wrong.

In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson’s chief executive, Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.

McCain did not urge the FCC commissioners to approve the proposal, but he asked for speedy consideration of the deal, which was pending from two years earlier. In an unusual response, then-FCC Chairman William Kennard complained that McCain’s request “comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process” and “could have procedural and substantive impacts on the commission’s deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.”

McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company’s jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.

Kleiman asks “Is it routine for a Senator from Arizona to pressure regulatory agencies on behalf of companies based in Florida?”

Fox News has these details, and is making it sound like this is not a big deal, because the senator did not press for an outcome, but only a speedy resolution. But regulatory uncertainty is very costly for firms; just getting your case jumped to the head of the line could be a pretty valuable special favor. It doesn’t cost the rest of us much, of course–unless we happen to work for the company whose case was delayed while everyone dropped everything to deal with the senator’s request.

That said, I don’t have a good sense of how much impact this sort of thing actually has, and I suspect it’s (sadly) rather common.

A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT Georgia is trying to move part of its state line more than a mile north, claiming a nineteenth century survey error.

COLE CITY HOLLOW, Tennessee – Nearly two centuries after a flawed survey placed Georgia’s northern line just short of the Tennessee River, some legislators are suddenly thirsting to set the record straight.

A historic drought has added urgency to Georgia’s generations-old claim that its territory ought to extend about a mile farther north than it does and reach into the Tennessee — a river with about 15 times greater flow than the one Atlanta depends on for its water.

Local Tennesseans are resisting, not least because Georgia, unlike Tennessee, has a state income tax

THE RICH REALLY ARE DIFFERENT . . .

They have more social conflicts. Few people realize how hard a wealthy socialite works. But Cookie mag has apparently launched a new investigative series that reveals the gritty underside of life in the jet set:

Only just last month, she was forced to choose between a trunk show, the Guggenheim Young Collectors Council’s annual Artist’s Ball, and a dinner party at a hedge-fund manager’s lavish home! Horreurs. Happily, she made the right decision and went to the trunk show. “At the event I saw rising It girl Chessy Wilson,” she relates in her inaugural column, “who regaled me with a story about her handbag catching fire earlier that day when she accidentally dropped a lit match into it.” Hahahahaha — barf. But it’s not all clinking and chortling for this real housewife. There is a dark side. “The problem with the New York City social scene is that it sucks you in,” she writes. What, like Michael Alig? Will Tatiana’s addiction to nightlife end in blood and guts and jail?

Apparently John McCain’s Keating adventures weren’t the only time his personal connections became risky business for his political career:

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.

But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.

McCain strikes me as a fundamentally honorable guy . . . so honorable that he doesn’t realize when he’s getting himself in a mess. Most politicians would do the risky things, but take more care not to get caught. I’m not sure whether this is a feature or a bug.

For more on McCain’s erstwhile iconoclasm, I highly recommend you watch/listen to Will Wilkinson interview Matt Welch, the editor of Reason magazine and the world’s greatest living libertarian expert on John McCain. His book on the topic is a highly interesting read.

Update: The McCain campaign is apparently responding. It’s a pretty wan non-denial denial, but I hear there’s more substantive rebuttal to come. CNN notes “This may end up being a story about the New York Times as about John McCain.” One does kind of wonder why they’re breaking an eight year-old story now.

I HAVE A THEORY ABOUT THAT . . . From Reuters:

Florida education officials voted on Tuesday to add evolution to required course work in public schools but only after a last-minute change depicting Charles Darwin’s seminal work as merely a theory.

Presumably they are adding the same caveats to gravity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics