The Reality-Based Community

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

On Having the Looks for a Career in Radio

By

thumbnail_IMG_0736

A prior RBC movie recommendation, The Ruling Class, included this strange and strangely memorable passage

I stand outside myself,
watching myself watching myself.
I smile. I smile. I smile.

I thought of those lines at the post-modern self-referential moment in which I took this photo. I was sitting in the television studio staring into a camera from which a host was going to interview me, but I couldn’t see him. I could however see in the monitor what he was seeing through the camera feed, including the fake background that was installed behind me, so I snapped a photo of myself watching myself being watched.

It is sometimes said that being on television is the American dream. I have to say that I am not sure why. I talk to journalists a couple of times in a typical week, and when it’s print or radio it usually comes easily to me because they are media that traffic in words, and I love words and feel comfortable with them.

Television in contrast is about images, including images that tend to overwhelm words. In the photo above, I was sitting under the klieg lights for 10 minutes waiting for the feed to link up. The lights dried out my eyes, which are generally dry anyway. In the televised interview, I look like a Viet Nam War prisoner trying to pass a coded message via eye blink. It’s so distracting that I am not sure anyone heard what I said.

My normal procedure for trying to get good at something is to closely observe people who are more skilled than I am. But because I don’t watch or even own a TV, this is a useless plan for progress. Maybe someday I will pick up TV skills on the fly, but more likely natural selection will run its course and I will ultimately spend my media time entirely in the world of words.

Cui bono?

By 3 Comments

xkcd:

mycology

Randall Munroe is not making this process up. Consider the single-celled amoeba-like parasite responsible for toxoplasmosis:

Toxoplasma gondii is known to remove rodents’ innate fear of cats. …. The microbe is a single-celled pathogen that infects most types of mammal and bird, causing a disease called toxoplasmosis. But its effects on rodents are unique; most flee cat odour, but infected ones are mildly attracted to it. This is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation to help the parasite complete its life cycle: toxoplasma can sexually reproduce only in the cat gut, and for it to get there, the pathogen’s rodent host must be eaten.

The mechanism offers an attractive take on human addictions to certain plant alkaloids. From the point of view of an opium poppy, coca shrub, or cannabis plant, its human commensals – Afghan peasants, Colombian drug smugglers and Californian advocates for marijuana legalisation – are all just useful idiots, unwitting allies in increasing its reproductive chances in the tangled bank of life.

You think plants don’t have the nous to follow toxoplasma? Consider this brilliantly successful innovation, a device to manipulate a huge range of animals into spreading pollen more efficiently than wind:

Magnolia-White-Flower-Pollen-Free-Image-Bee-Close--4630

Magnolia flower, an early example (up to 95 myr BP).
Credit

* * * *

Any reader attending Mark’s cannabis policy summit at NYU on April 17-18 should feel free to reuse this. I’m not going. Bunch of speciesists if you ask me.

Weekend Film Recommendation: The Count of Monte Cristo

By 9 Comments

robert-donat-count-of-monte-cristo_13

In the 1930s, film studios made a run of lavish historical costume dramas based on best-selling books (Some of them literary classics, others meretricious tripe). The majority were set in Europe and a few were even made there, including prior RBC film recommendation The Scarlet Pimpernel. But most were produced on Hollywood back lots, such as MGM’s Tale of Two Cities, Warner Brothers’ Anthony Adverse and RKO’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame. This week’s film recommendation is another classic from RKO made in this period: 1934’s Count of Monte Cristo.

Dumas’ thrilling tale of romance, revenge and redemption is catnip for filmmakers. It had been adapted to the silver screen several times before 1934 and has been filmed many times since (and referenced in other films as well). But the 1934 version is arguably the best of the bunch and certainly holds up very well today.

The key presence is British actor Robert Donat, who made his only trip to Hollywood to make this movie (he did not care for it, returning soon after to spend the rest of his life in England). As the Count (nee Edmund Dantes), he’s dashing, eloquent, passionate and also manages to make the credibility-stretching aspects of the plot believable. His lady love is played winningly by Elissa Landi, who like Donat is so agreeable to the eyes that it’s easy to miss her acting talent. The two performers bring across their aching romance as much through non-verbal gestures and anguished looks as with dialogue, reminding us that this was the era in which most actors were used to working without sound (The previous adaptations of this story in fact were all silent movies). Watching Donat and Landi today exerts an extra tug on the heart because modern viewers will know that both of them died young, given them a tragic air that makes them even more romantic as couple.

As was the norm for these affairs, the studio spared no expense on set designs, costumes and props, producing a spectacle that must have given Depression Era audiences some wonderful moments of escape. The sumptuous scene in which the Count throws a ball as part of his plan to avenge himself on those who betrayed him is a particularly memorable “film in a film” sequence. The cast at the ball gawps as elaborate tableau after tableau is revealed on a grand stage, and the movie audience gawps at them gawping. It’s a visual feast.

Director Rowland Lee had a touch for this sort of material and brought out the best in the talented cast. There isn’t a bad performance in the movie, and there are several powerful ones. The result is pure escapist entertainment of the first order.

monte-cristo-sword-fight-big

p.s. As of this writing, this movie is free on Amazon Prime.

p.p.s. If you like Robert Donat in this movie, you will probably also enjoy his performance in a prior RBC film recommendation The 39 Steps.

Cannabis News of the Day

By Leave a Comment

Lots of Love in D.C. – A business exploits the ambiguities of cannabis laws to create a delivery market. Meanwhile, the District council has moved to ban private cannabis clubs two months after commissioning a study on the issue. And, three years later, the racial divide in arrests for marijuana still exists.

Oregon considers new ways to ingest low doses of cannabis, including candles and edibles, but it’s doing so with caution, say state regulators. Governor Kate Brown has, however, signed into law a bill permitting banks in Oregon to service cannabis businesses. The law may mean very little in the face of federal laws. But investors are still interested. Hilary Bricken talks about cannabis investors.

With cannabis legalization in Massachusetts and Vermont (and Maine) in limbo, Connecticut activists see a big opportunity for the short term. Governor Malloy could not disagree more. However, some other state lawmakers are pushing to bring the debate to the floor of the legislature. The speaker of the Colorado state house spoke to them yesterday.

The GAO’s recent report says that the DOJ should more carefully document the effects of legalization. DOJ is drawing flack from Congress as well, with Senators Grassley and Feinstein, both staunch anti-legalization advocates, holding a pointedly political hearing. So, do “good people” smoke marijuana? The senators would have you believe that this is not the case. Federal criticism aside, the U.N. will have to talk about cannabis this month. But here’s what they won’t talk about.

And finally, if cannabis is legalized, will gangs diversify? Keith Humphreys talks about the vast swathe of lower-income Americans whose views don’t always make it into policy discussions.

The Paris Accord junket

By 2 Comments

 

Since well before the adoption in December of the Paris Climate Accord, the State Department was angling for a splashy junket in New York for the opening to signature. This will be on Earth Day, April 22.

Tradecraft note: an international agreement is adopted by a group of states at a diplomatic conference: that means they agree on the text, and won’t try to renegotiate it. Adoption does not commit any of them legally to the binding acts of signature [update] with ratification or acceptance – compare engagement and marriage. The adopted text will lay down the date of opening to signature, usually later to allow for translations and legal proofreading. States then sign it, which is signifies [update] the commitment by their government to comply, possibly with a caveat as to ratification, which may involve parliamentary approval depending on the national legal system. For the US, it’s an executive agreement, so Obama can sign [update] and accept without reservation as to ratification. [Slight correction: the Paris Accord actually requires deposit of “instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession” as well as signatures, see Articles 20(1) and 21(1), and Articles 11 and 14 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The signature by itself is ceremonial and no longer does anything beyond estopping the Party from acting to frustrate the treaty, ibid. Article 18.]

Treaty of Ghent, 1814: 2 states, 11 diplomats, 7 wax seals

Treaty of Ghent, 1814: 2 states, 11 diplomats, 7 wax seals

France is still in the chair of the Conference of the Parties. How are they getting on with the show? March 11 report:

Ségolène Royal, French Environment Minister and newly-appointed President of the UN-led climate negotiations, said yesterday that more than 30 heads of state and government have already said they will attend the signing event.

She is hoping and working to get this up to 80-100, and I’m sure John Kerry is adding his weight. It won’t match the record 150 of the opening of the Paris conference, and does not need to for what is basically a photo-op with Barack Obama as he rides gracefully into the sunset.

Share of GHG emissions, 2011. Source EIA

Shares of GHG emissions, 2011. Source EPA

The practical interest is whether the UN can reach the target for entry into force on Day 1. This requires signatures by 55 countries responsible for 55% of global emissions. Heads of state and government won’t be going unless they can sign, so the 30 is a fix. But signing can perfectly well be done by a minister with a less crowded diary, or the regular ambassador to the UN. The emissions bar will be just about met if only the US (16%), China (28%), and the EU-28 (10%), making 54%, sign together. It all looks very doable.

Watch out if any countries uprate their NDCs. So far they are INDCs, “intended national determined contributions”. The final ones will be attached to the signatures. I’ve been pointing out for a while that China and India are outpacing their INDCs on the ground and could improve their offers to general acclaim at no policy cost. Whether they do so on April 22 is a question of PR.

As is the whole thing. Don’t complain: successful diplomacy has always been a theatre of reconciliation. A successful launch of the Paris Accord will get its machinery up and running, and increase its chances of impact. A pity the wax seal bling has gone.

Has Bill McKibben got his big street demo organised? Obama has written his speech.

[Update 4 April early:] Report here that the USA, China and India will all sign on April 22. The 55% of emissions will be met with partial EU signatures, and many other countries will speed up not to be left out. However, their instruments of ratification or acceptance will still be in the post. Actual entry into force is likely in the summer or early autumn – before the US election. That’s unusually swift for a large multilateral treaty.

Update 9 April
Latest from the UN:

More than 130 countries have confirmed that they will sign the Paris Agreement on 22 April, the first day that the agreement will be open for signature …. In addition, more countries have informally indicated that they will sign the agreement, with the numbers increasing rapidly each week. Over 60 Heads of State and Government will attend the ceremony, including French President François Hollande … A number of countries have also indicated that they will deposit their instruments of ratification immediately after signing the agreement on 22 April.

No confirmation from Obama. I assume he was waiting to see if a decent number of other leaders turned up.

It’s all looking good for early entry into force. Clinton will be campaigning to defend a done deal, Trump or Cruz to go back on one. The “What about China?” meme will look ridiculous.

Don’t waste my time with confirmation

By 23 Comments

You won’t read this to the end. All it offers is confirmation of things I’ve said already. The System 1 Energizer Bunny processor in your brain – or more classically, the Hare – that runs most of your decisions using strong priors and dodgy rules of thumb already made your mind up for you on both points. The lazy Tortoise, the System 2 processor that can think systematically but drains the battery, doesn’t think it’s worth waking up for anybody less than James Hansen or a Cochrane meta-analysis. Is that a half-open eye? Quick, before it closes, let me make my play. And Bunny, before you scamper away, there are shiny NEW anecdata at the end!

Carbon emissions are peaking
I made the claim here, in fine. The confirmation is from one of the three sources, the IEA.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide stood at 32.1 billion tonnes in 2015, having remained essentially flat since 2013.

Continue Reading…

Cannabis policy: Walmart phenomenon, Whole Foods debate

By 1 Comment

Jonathan Caulkins once described the debate over cannabis policy as “a Whole Foods discussion of a Walmart situation.” The graphic below illustrates his point: most of the days of use involve people with a high-school education (the purple band), high-school dropouts (the green band) or people under high-school graduation age (the red band); the people in the discussion mostly have college degrees (the orange band) if not more.

Keith Humpheys reflects on the implications of that situation.

Although education is not a perfect proxy for income, the fact that 85% of pot is consumed by people who didn’t graduate college makes clear that marijuana is mainly consumed by people in working-class and poor neighborhoods, not in the kinds of places that economists, attorneys, policy analysts, journalists, physicians and politicians tend to live. A major challenge therefore for the legitimacy of marijuana policy is to ensure that people outside the college educated bubble gain more voice in the ongoing political debate.

Continue Reading…

Hilary Bricken on investing in cannabis

By 1 Comment

Hilary Bricken heads the cannabis law group at at Harris Moure, PLLC  and will lead the panel on “investing in cannabis” at the NYU Cannabis Science & Policy Summit two weeks from now. She has some good advice both for firms in the cannabis business seeking investors and for potential investors about the risks the firms need to disclose and the investors need to consider.

Since Hilary is a lawyer, her primary stress is on risks posed by the fact that the entire industry – even the part regulated by the states – is still completely illegal under federal law.  I’ve read some pretty scary prospectuses in my day (back before Harold Pollack warned me about investing in individual companies), but I’ve never seen anything quite as bracing as this:

The federal government may raid us, seize all of our equipment and inventory, and arrest all of our employees, officers, and investors, including you.

Since I’m not a lawyer, but merely a close substitute for an economist, I would put even more stress on a less spectacular but far more probable risk, which I might put in prospectus language about as follows:

Future prices in the state-legal cannabis markets, or under federal legalization should that take place, are unpredictable, but almost certain to be far lower than current prices in those markets or in the illicit market. Cannabis is naturally cheap to produce, and competitive pressures will relentlessly force market prices for cannabis as a commodity down toward the level of costs. There can be no assurance that the Company’s best efforts to secure durable market advantage through branding, product innovation protected by intellectual property rights, or regulatory favoritism will succeed; if they do not, your investment will almost certainly become worthless.

So while all of Hilary’s legal advice is solid, I’d add one more word of economic advice about investing in the emerging legal cannabis industry.

Don’t!

How to make more good blue-collar jobs

By 23 Comments

If you’re looking for a silver lining in the dark cloud of the Trump candidacy, you might notice that it has brought some  attention to the worsening state of white people without a college degree. It’s not that the world is rosy for non-whites without college degrees, of course, but on average they were starting from a lower base; it’s the white part of the working and lower-middle class that seems to be experiencing fairly serious downward social mobility and social dislocation, as demonstrated most dramatically by increasing mortality rates in young adulthood and midlife.

Trump’s success in getting non-college whites riled up about immigration and trade doesn’t answer the question about how much of their plight can actually be traced to those causes, but it has served to remind advocates of the free movement of goods and workers that those policies produce losers as well as winners, and that one function of the political process is to ensure that a rising tide does in fact lift all the boats, rather than lifting the yachts while swamping the dinghies.

Megan McArdle lifts a libertarian voice to join the chorus. And she’s skeptical that income-transfer policies can fix things. (Though in my view we need them just the same.)  What the downwardly-mobile need, McArdle says, is not income per se as much as employment: “good work — by which I mean work that offers opportunity, stability, respect and enough money to raise a family.” And she argues that the answer can’t be turning working-class people into middle-class people by offering higher education to people “who don’t have the ability, preparation or inclination to sit through four years of college,” and that politicians’ other answers to the problem of bringing back good blue-collar jobs are mostly beside the point.

This is way outside my policy wheelhouse,  but from a distance this looks like a problem with a bunch of obvious solutions, though each of them is partial:

Continue Reading…