WE’RE NOT THE ONLY ONES HAVING ELECTIONS: Ukraine has just finished a poll which may transform it into that rarest of creatures: a former soviet republic with a functioning democracy. Of course, the campaign has not exactly been unmarred. Both candidates are now claiming that they’ve won (but both are agreeing to a runoff). And someone seems to have poisoned the challenger (Putin supports his opponent), with some pretty horrifying results. But if the election works, and the transition proceeds smoothly, we’ll be seeing democracy bloom in another most unlikely place.

OSAMA BIN LADEN: ECONOMIC ILLITERATE I’ve always heaped scorn on the notion that war is good for the economy; it’s the height of fallacious economic reasoning to think that a practice which destroys tons of equipment and hundreds of young men is an economic boon. But Osama Bin Laden’s equally wrong if he thinks that this war is going to weaken our economy

Bin Laden also suggested that the huge sums of money Washington spends on homeland security and the military serve his agenda of weakening the U.S. economy.

“All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration,” bin Laden said. “All that we have to do is to send two mujaheddin to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written ‘al Qaeda’ in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses, without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.”

He added: “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”

Iraq and Afghanistan together have cost us less than $300 billion, including the money Bush is going to ask for next year. In the same period, the US economy will have grossed about 36 trillion dollars, meaning that the war will have cost us less than 1% of our income.

If Osama really wants to gut the US budget, he’s going to need to try something more drastic, like opening up a chain of Medicare clinics. His efforts so far haven’t even done that much damage to the deficit, much less the US economy.

WHAT COMES NEXT FOR THE WINNING PARTY? Many magazines have written stories about the political implications of losing. But what about the winners? Will they be in a good position?

In general, you’d think yes. We’re coming out of a recession, which generally means that the next president will enjoy rapid growth in employment and personal livng standards–and that spells popularity. There are, however, some clouds on the horizon, which means that winning may not necessarily be the boon both parties are expecting.

For starters, a number of people are talking about another recession in 2005. High oil prices were the driving force behind the stagnation of the 1970’s; it’s credible to think that it could happen again. Moreover, the recovery has been underpinned by what many people think is an interest-rate bubble: an explosion of consumer debt driven by Alan Greenspan’s free hand with the money supply. Even before Greenspan started to raise rates again, consumers were pretty much maxing out; as they retrench, the economy may slow, and consumer confidence will certainly take a beating. The government balance sheet is in no better shape, and our massive current account deficit (meaning we import much more than we export) means that the dollar is almost certainly going to slide further against both the euro and asian currencies. That means inflation and fewer cheap electronics from China.

And the economy isn’t the only problem spot. There’s Iraq, of course. Then there’s our massive entitlement problem. Towards the middle of the next president’s term, he’s going to have to deal with Medicare opening up a deficit. That means that instead of people’s payroll taxes for Medicare funneling extra money into the general budget, the government will have to start transferring money to Medicare to cover expenses.

Of course, Iraq may have bottomed out, entitlements may stretch out for a few more years before they begin to pinch, and the economy may power forward despite all my dire warnings–it’s a common joke that economists have predicted nine of the last five recessions. In which case, the next president will probably be sitting pretty. Still, if your guy doesn’t carry the day tomorrow, you can console yourself with the thought that he might be getting a lot more than he bargained for.

SHOULD WE BE BOTHERED because Osama seems to have gotten a helping hand with his propaganda from Michael Moore?

Documentary makers, like journalists, are a vital part of a free society’s feedback mechanism. Should journalists or filmmakers refrain from criticising the administration because the country’s enemies might pick up on it for propaganda purposes? Hell no.

The problem is that Michael Moore has provided Osama with propaganda composed of gross exaggeration, artful misdirection and cheap shots. A healthy society allows for that, as the price of our liberal principles. But just because we don’t want to ban it doesn’t mean that we should laud it. Michael Moore made a movie that’s fundamentally dishonest in order to score political points, and in doing so, he has helped the cause of his country’s enemies. We know that he isn’t ashamed; he has no shame. But his fellow citizens should be outraged.

FIRST MAKE THE RULES, THEN FOLLOW THEM: James Joyner elegantly sums up why it’s better to follow the rules set down by the legislature, than to chase an impossible standard of fairness through the courts:

. . . every time I’ve voted, there have been election observers from the two political parties. There’s no better way that I can think of to assure people that there is no misconduct taking place in heavily partisan precincts. That said, I could see where having hordes of challengers could disrupt the process.

This is yet another case, though, where the legislature is a more legitimate body to make decisions on such issues than the courts. The advantage of having the legislature make these choices–as they had already done by passing the statute, signed by the governor–is that they are made a priori. When judges get involved, by definition, a specific case in controversy exists and there is therefore knowledge of which party a specific application of a rule will advantage. In this case, a single political appointee has made two crucial judgments that may call the most heated state contest into question. That’s not good for a democratic system.

WHAT DO THE MARKETS SAY? Rather than parsing polls, which I’m not very good at, I’ve taken a look at the electronic betting markets, where people with an opinion about the election can put their money where their mouth is. As of this afternoon, the markets have Bush winning it by a nose.

Readers who are anxious about the outcome of the election should take this opportunity to hedge their net psychic wealth by betting against their candidate. That’s right, I said against. That way, if you’re a rabid Kerry partisan, and he loses, you’ll at least have the consolation of a couple hundred dollars to blow on drinking or a one-way ticket to France. Similarly, I’m sure Bush supporters would find their anguish eased by a little walking-around money before the taxman comes and takes everything they have. Of course, if your candidate wins you’re out the money you bet, but in your joy at having Saved the World From HIM, you probably won’t even notice.

THE CHALLENGERS CHALLENGED: Two federal judges have ruled that parties may not have challengers at the polls in Ohio.

This is a unliateral victory for the Democrats. As I’ve said before, I don’t see any reason to prefer maximising turnout, at the expense of allowing fraud, any more than I think we should prefer to root out every last case of fraud, at the expense of deterring legal voters. The law ought to try to strike a balance, but for reasons I don’t understand, we’ve decided to max out turnout even though this means allowing quite a bit of fraud. Since what scant evidence we have indicates that dead, canine, and imaginary voters break heavily Democratic, this will hurt Bush on election day.

ARE WE REALLY MORE DIVIDED THAN WE’VE EVER BEEN? I recently asked my mother whether this election was, as everyone I work with keeps assuring me, “the nastiest election ever.” I live on the Upper West Side, three blocks from the house I grew up in, and honestly, this election feels to me very much the same as the elections of 1984, 1988 and 1992, when we also had Republican incumbents: the daily predictions of apocalypse should the incumbent be re-elected, the virulent and vicious hatred unleashed in logorrheic torrents every time his name was mentioned, the threats to leave the country if the Republican was returned to office .

But I was a schoolgirl then, and couldn’t vote, and it’s very possible that my memories are not representative, since most of my teachers ranged between the liberal democratic and the hard left. So I asked my mother, who remembers those days more clearly.

Mom agrees: everyone on the Upper West Side was just as mad then as they are now. I suspect the only reason the media can detect this unprecedented bitterness on the part of the electorate is that, living as they do in Democratic strongholds, the Clinton years lulled them into forgetting the rank hatred that prevailed during Republican administrations (and which, I presume, prevailed in Georgia and Alabama when Clinton was in office).

Jennifer Watson agrees:

To listen to the Democrats, you would think that George W. Bush is the first Republican candidate they’ve ever disliked and that this is the first time this nation has faced a close election.

Does anyone remember 1984? Do you recall how much the Democrats hated Ronald Reagan?

If you buy their version of the Reagan presidency, he invented homelessness, eliminated birth control for the poor and personally killed thousands in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras. He created AIDS and apartheid and single-handedly broke the back of organized labor. You think the liberals dislike Don Rumsfeld? Just ask them about James Watt!

Don’t forget about Reagan’s “assault on the poor.” No, the left wing of American politics couldn’t just disagree with Reagan’s economic policies — he was assaulting the poor.

DEPARTMENT OF NONSENSE: So Osama has released a new video in which he harshes on Bush:

“It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the country (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone … because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important,” bin Laden said, referring to Bush’s visit to a school when the attack occurred.

Just goes to show, you get a little nutty when you spend too much time living in a cave.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND ALREADY!!! One by one, the undecided voters in my family have fallen, two to Bush and one to none of the above. I’ve lingered, though. I know that few people believed this, but this wasn’t some stunt; I’ve honestly been undecided. A couple of times I came {imagine two fingers pressed together} this close to deciding for Kerry, on the grounds that Bush is a pigheaded incompetent; one time I decided I was going Bush, because Kerry is a rank opportunist and a multilateralist naif. But then something has always pulled me back into the battleground of indecision. I’ve been here before; I voted for Gore in 2000 at the last minute, and then switched my allegiance during the Florida Ballot Wars. What can I say? I’m a flip-flopper nuanced.

But now I’ve decided. You can read the endorsement at my blog (where you can comment), or click for an extended entry. As you can see, I was up into the wee-sma hours writing this, so be kind on any grammatical errors or typos you may find.

One more thing: though I’ve decided who to vote for, it wasn’t an easy choice, and I won’t be too jubilant if he wins, nor downcast if his opponent comes in. Like all Americans (I hope), I’ll be wishing whoever wins the best of luck in Iraq and a rising economic tide to lift all boats.

(more…)

WHAT HAS ARAFAT GOT? Medpundit thinks cancer, with liver metastes. I have absolutely no medical qualifications whatsoever, but I also thought cancer when I saw him, from his emaciated face and bloated belly. And he looks . . . small . . . the way dying people do. I think he may be close to the end.

SAY MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM: This week’s Carnival of the Recipes is up!

PHOTO FINISH: A reader emails the following:

If you review the pictures on the KSTP web site that has the ABC video everyone is using you can see a very clear picture of a seal with its number (#144322). The PDF document of the UN inspections available show the numbers of the seals and none of them have that number. Therefore, it is clear that the bunkers that ABC videoed were not the ones that held the HMX the UN inspected.

I’m more inclined to trust a news organisation than a UN bureaucracy, but its certainly worth investigating.

UPDATE: A colleague points out that the seal in question is just a sample, not one of the ones that’s supposed to be at the site. Mystery explained.

Jim Treacher offers me more reasons not to vote for Bush.

REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE: If you want to get in touch with one of us guest bloggers — or just see our normal blogs — here’s our info:

Michael Totten
Blog: michaeltotten.com
Email: michaeltotten001 -at – yahoo -dot – com

Ann Althouse
Blog: Althouse
Email: her last name, followed by @wisc.edu

Megan McArdle
Blog: Asymmetrical Information
Email: janegalt -at- janegalt -dot- net

IT’S REAL, SO RUN IT: The CIA has apparently authenticated the tape of a terrorist threatening new attacks, but ABC is holding off because of the political implications.

It’s no better to hold a story until after the election because of its political impact, than to hold one until right before the election because it will make a bigger bang. Nor would it be right to hold a tape telling Americans to elect Kerry, or else he’d kill them.

There are legitimate questions about whether news organisations should air tapes made by terrorists, because it raises questions of whether we are in some way becoming instruments of terror. But if ABC is planning to air this tape at all, it should air it now; there’s no excuse for waiting. ABC is a news organisation; the tape is news; and it’s been authenticated. ABC should run it tonight. The story’s going to get out anyway.

UPDATE: Howard Kurtz reports that ABC may not run it at all, saying they aren’t convinced it represents a real threat. Fair enough, but if it’s distributed by Al-Qaeda’s house cinemetography shop, as I’m reading it is, that would seem a good indicator.

FURTHER UPDATE: A source at a news organisation emails the following:

A CIA spokesperson whom I spoke to mere moments ago was very adamant in saying the ABC terror tape has “not, not, not, not, not, not, not, not yet been authenticated.” Thought you might like to know because, thanks to Drudge, a lot of people are getting this wrong.

POLL-WATCHING: The Washington Post says there are major problems with the polls

Costs are soaring as cooperation rates remain at or near record lows. In some surveys, less than one in five calls produces a completed interview — raising doubts whether such polls accurately reflect the views of the public or merely report the opinions of stay-at-home Americans who are too bored, too infirm or too lonely to hang up.

I THINK IT’S SAFE TO SAY That Bush’s lead in Missouri is now locked up. Of course, his campaign might try to start a whispering campaign pointing out that a man who thinks that Eddie Yost and “Manny Ortez” play for the Sox can’t be that much of a fan. But how to keep the Red Sox fans from hearing about it? And wouldn’t this just bring up the painful subject of “Lambert Field” in a state that Kerry really needs to win?

ON THE OTHER HAND: Gerard Baker says I should vote for Bush because he’s pissing off the right people.

ROCK THE VOTE Electoral-Vote.Com, one of the political-junkie polling sites I linke a few days ago, has excellent advice for everyone planning to vote in this election:

Several lawyers have contacted me about the issue of what to do if you show up to vote and the election officials say you are not registered. Here is the procedure. First, be absolutely sure you are in the correct precinct. If you are in the wrong precinct, in most states, your vote won’t be counted. If you are not 100% certain of your polling place, go to www.mypollingplace.com and check. Alternatively, call the toll-free number 1-866-OUR-VOTE or your county clerk. If you are sure you are in the correct polling place and the officials claim you are not registered, ask for a provisional ballot and fill it out correctly. You are entitled to one by law. Politely, but firmly, insist on being given a provisional ballot.

ARE EXPATS REALLY GOING KERRY? In response to my earlier post, a reader writes from Bulgaria:

I’m an ex-pat in Sofia, Bulgaria and have been watching CNN World do pieces called “A View From Europe,” which shows a series of snippets from expats living throughout (old) Europe. Every one I’ve seen has been anti-Bush (eg. pro-Kerry by default). Most are a bit stylized, well-edited jobs with excellent voice overs while the expat walks down streets, or buys groceries, or does other normal things (working in this field myself, I always laugh at what I know is contrived, albeit well-contrived).

Most of the fellow ex-pats I meet around here are split 70/30 Bush. And most of those Bush supporters dread—as I do—a Kerry presidency based on their understanding of the ‘rest of the world’ (that sounds arrogant, but it’s exactly the ‘ex-pat’ knowledge of the ‘rest of the world’ that makes their expertise seem to matter more, yes?).

Kerry is seen as weak. And frankly, many people, even here, work in risky jobs and don’t want another “Tomahawk thrower.” With Bush, at least, an overseas bombing or kidnapping will be reported in the news (repeatedly, with accompanying editorial), prompting the current administration to act if it hasn’t already. In short, most are looking out for #1, and know who is the Reagan and who is the Carter in our current election.

The 30% or so going for Kerry still have nothing good to say about Kerry, but stick to the Bush Dumb=I’m Embarrassed and Alienated From Important Foreign People meme. It tends to be a reflection of what CNN World is televising, and apparently what is being reported over in the States.

THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN? The prestigious endorsement of The Economist has gone to . . . [insert drumroll here] . . . . John Kerry. But it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Like those two previous challengers, Mr Kerry has shaped many of his positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same. In the American system, given Congress’s substantial role, presidents should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of leadership, for how they might be expected to deal with the crises that may confront them, abroad or at home. Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign.

If the test is a domestic one, especially an economic crisis, Mr Kerry looks acceptable, however. His record and instincts are as a fiscal conservative, suggesting that he would rightly see future federal budget deficits as a threat. His circle of advisers includes the admirable Robert Rubin, formerly Mr Clinton’s treasury secretary. His only big spending plan, on health care, would probably be killed by a Republican Congress. On trade, his position is more debatable: while an avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate. He has not yet shown Mr Clinton’s talent for advocacy on this issue, or any willingness to confront his rather protectionist party. Still, on social policy, Mr Kerry has a clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian right. That will make him a more tolerant, less divisive figure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research.

The biggest questions, though, must be about foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. That is where his oscillations are most unsettling. A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to support, he now describes as “a mistake”. On some occasions he claims to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush’s targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies.

They go for Kerry for precisely the reason I’m thinking of doing so:

Many readers, feeling that Mr Bush has the right vision in foreign policy even if he has made many mistakes, will conclude that the safest option is to leave him in office to finish the job he has started. If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well. But our confidence in him has been shattered. We agree that his broad vision is the right one but we doubt whether Mr Bush is able to change or has sufficient credibility to succeed, especially in the Islamic world. Iraq’s fledgling democracy, if it gets the chance to be born at all, will need support from its neighbours – or at least non-interference – if it is to survive. So will other efforts in the Middle East, particularly concerning Israel and Iran.

John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it. But his plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush’s, which speaks well of his judgment. He has been forthright about the need to win in Iraq, rather than simply to get out, and will stand a chance of making a fresh start in the Israel-Palestine conflict and (though with even greater difficulty) with Iran. After three necessarily tumultuous and transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline and for repairing America’s moral and practical authority. Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America’s great tasks.

THE ULTIMATE ROPE-A-DOPE? If this is true, then Kerry’s killer story just blew up in his face: the Washington Times is reporting that Russian Special Forces helped Iraqis remove the missing explosives in the weeks before the war.

I wouldn’t want to be Kerry’s strategy team trying to explain on the stump how John Kerry’s going to make the war go better by getting the other members of the UN Security Council on board.

OCTOBER SURPRISE? Could this be it?

YOU’RE GETTING SLEEEEEEPY: A new study shows that tired interns are making mistakes.

D’uh! I have no patience with the way hospitals work their interns and residents. I’ve never heard a good explanation for why we want our junior medicos, who provide a lot of our front-line care, in a state of perpetual exhaustion; most revolve around the utterly unconvincing idea that they somehow need to learn to work under pressure, as if they were all going to be disaster-relief doctors. After a few weeks, older doctors assure me, they learn how to cope.

Hogwash. I’ve worked those kinds of ours as a technology consultant many times, and while you do get better at coping with exhaustion, there are limits. And I don’t care who you are or how many times you’ve done it before, when you’ve been up for 36 hours: you. are. stupid. Your reaction times slow waaaay down (or speed up disastrously, as you short circuit past critical steps), you’re over-emotional, and you’re prone to cut corners as your body and brain cry out desperately, desperately for sleep.

Sure, I’ve done it. But at the end of the day, I was working on a box of bolts. It would be a VERY BAD THING if one of my clients, say, couldn’t trade on Monday morning — but they’d all still be breathing when they came in on Tuesday. Also, I rarely had to make split-second, irreversible decisions about caring for my boxes; they were unlikely to flatline while I took a few minutes to think things over.

The system endangers patients. I recall when a friend of mine, an intern, had to go to work despite the fact that he was suffering from terrible influenza. Why? He had to make his hours. How ridiculous is it to have a system that puts sick doctors out on the floor where they can infect patients? And what kind of decisions do you think a flu-ridden intern makes?

Even worse than that, the doctors know it endangers patients–they don’t want themselves, or their families, in the care of residents. Some of that is because we all naturally want the most experienced doctor for our families, of course. But some of it is because they know that exhausted doctors make for bad care.

(Why can’t they just let them work shorter hours? Say it with me, folks: the reason is green, and it folds. Fewer hours for residents mean more hours for attending physicians, who, unlike residents, would have to be paid for it.)

UPDATE: a fellow alum of the University of Chicago Business school emails

I’m in healthcare, have been for 13 years or so, and know a thing or two about overworked interns. The ACGME, who accredits most residencies, has put new guidelines in place that essentially prohibit working more than 80 hours. This may sound little better than “slaves may only be whipped 20 times per day,” but it’s a start. Many of our hospital clients have been busily hiring more physician faculty and mid-level providers to make up the difference. The downside here, the point you almost seem to be getting to, is that this is awfully expensive, especially at a time when hospitals are being forced by the government to implement scores of new regulations, and forced by private payors and employers to implement lots of good, expensive, ideas like hiring full-time intensivists and converting to electronic medical records. I am fortunate enough to have access to good, expensive health insurance. But anything that raises costs will have the effect of pushing healthcare further out of the reach of tens of millions of Americans. Is a sleepy intern better than no intern? You decide–but let’s not be so naïve as to pretend there is no trade-off.

MORE FROM A LAWYER I KNOW:

Just saw your post on sleepy interns & the 80-hour limit. I’m not sure where
your friend is writing from, but NY state has had the 80-hour limit in place
since the 1980s (the Bell Commission recommended it after the 1984 death of
Libby Zion) and it’s generally regarded as a bad joke amongst doctors. A
massively disproportionate number of my friends are doctors who are doing or
have recently completed their internships, and the 80-hour-limit is widely
regarded as being flouted more often & more flagrantly than the Giuliani
crackdown on jaywalking. (I believe that hospitals would rather pay the
fines for violating the rules than hire more personnel – an eloquent
statement of the inadequacy of the NY sanctions, the expense of hiring more
personnel, or both.)

ANOTHER UPDATE: Jonathan Wilde at Catallarchy has a long, thoughtful piece on the problem.

Unfortunately, none of these explanations stack up against the one that makes the most sense, and the one that Megan mentions. As usual, when in doubt, look at the incentives. The number of practicing physicians in this country is not determined by the market like the number of practicing engineers, architects, or plumbers. Rather, it is strictly limited by law. Who has the incentive to limit the number of practicing physicians? Currently practicing physicians who do not want to face competition. Yet, the work still has to get done. Rather than work harder themselves to make up for the paucity of workers, they shift the burden to residents. Why do the residents have an incentive to put up with difficult working conditions? Because once they finish residency, they will be the ones enjoying monopoly privilege while future residents suffer in their stead. They have an incentive to choose delayed gratification.

But in the end, patients do suffer as a result as these studies and others in the past have shown.