Edward Tufte Appointed To Help Track and Explain Stimulus Funds

President Obama recently announced several appointments to the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, including data visualization expert Edward Tufte, author of The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. The purpose of the panel is to advise the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, whose aim is "To promote accountability by coordinating and conducting oversight of Recovery funds to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and to foster transparency on Recovery spending by providing the public with accurate, user-friendly information." Tufte said on his website, "I'm doing this because I like accountability and transparency, and I believe in public service. And it is the complete opposite of everything else I do. Maybe I'll learn something. The practical consequence is that I will probably go to Washington several days each month, in addition to whatever homework and phone meetings are necessary."

Comments

Blech.

[Pojut]

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'" -Bill Hicks

Re:Blech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically? Fuck you. Lame cynicism is fine for wannabe goths in their black paint coated crypt/bedroom in their parent's basement. But, here we have evidence of bringing in one of the finest minds in data visualization to open up the complicated workings of government. This is a good thing.

It's makes sense that you got first post (you obviously have a lot of time on your hands) but it's really sad that your throw-away cynicism was confused with insight by your fellow high-school students.

Re:Blech.

[Pojut]

Basically? Fuck you. Lame cynicism is fine for wannabe goths in their black paint coated crypt/bedroom in their parent's basement. But, here we have evidence of bringing in one of the finest minds in data visualization to open up the complicated workings of government. This is a good thing.

And where did I say it was a bad thing?

It's makes sense that you got first post (you obviously have a lot of time on your hands)

Early Monday morning, before I get any requests in for something that needs fixing (I'm a mail merge programmer)? You're right, I do have some time on my hands.

but it's really sad that your throw-away cynicism was confused with insight by your fellow high-school students.

I appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to attack me personally, yet do nothing to respond to the quote I referenced.

Interesting... just like a modern politician...which, funny enough, falls under the quote in my OP.

Re:Blech.

[anaesthetica]

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality.

"They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens.

"This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'" —George Carlin

link

Re:Blech.

[sonicmerlin]

No one needs to respond to a quote as stupid as that. Republicans are opposed to Democrats on almost every possible area. They're deadlocked in everything, if for no other reason than that the Republicans simply don't want to compromise with a man who is disappointingly centrist.

Obama is no radical liberal. He's so corporatist it's been shocking to his own voter base. The fact that he hired Timothy Geithner, Bush's old top financial adviser, to write the bill to reform banks, speaks of how centrist he is.

On the other hand saying that the two parties are the same is just stupid. Yes Democrats also get donations from corporations, but there are so many documented instances where a Democrat receives money from a large corporation from then turns around and votes supporting a legislation against that same corporation.

Re:Blech.

[Pojut]

The quote doesn't meant they are the same, it means they are slaves to the same master...greed.

Re:Blech.

[sourcerror]

We have the best politicians money can buy.

Academics

[Hatta]

Just another feel good appointment of an academic to a position where they can't really do anything. Meanwhile Obama staffs his cabinet with wall street insiders. If Obama really wants transparency and accountability, he should fire Geithner and replace him with Elizabeth Warren. But no, he won't do that.

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also inexcusable that billions upon billions of dollars were given out without anything in place to track where that money was ending up. It's only after the fact that they consider such accounting?

A mere $10,000 student loan has greater financial controls in place than the stimulus funding.

Re:Academics

[vlm]

he should fire Geithner and replace him with Elizabeth Warren. But no, he won't do that.

Warren? Well, anyone would be an improvement. Wouldn't Ron Paul be better? As treasury secretary, his peculiar opinions about abortion would be about as important as Tom Cruise's insights about foreign policy, i.e. quaintly irrelevant to the task at hand. Would be a nice last job for a smart old man (I mean RP not Cruise)

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

Wall street has the country by the gonads, If you are not wall street friendly you are in deep s**t.

I believe that is a fact.

Re:Academics

[vlm]

Just another feel good appointment of an academic to a position where they can't really do anything.

Bruce Schneier newly appointed as Secretary of the US department of Homeland (in)Security? That would be change I could believe in. Maybe in the second term, if he somehow gets 51% of the votes.

Re:Academics

[raju1kabir]

Just another feel good appointment of an academic to a position where they can't really do anything.

I took a grad school seminar with him at Yale. The man is loopy, but he has a truly powerful brain. He comes up with ways of looking at problems that are like time bombs. First you think he's a crackpot - how could anyone propose something so ridiculous? Then a few days later, it's been stewing in the back of your head, and your mindly slowly blows as you realise just how much cleverer it is than anything you've heard before. Simply putting him near anything involving information is almost guaranteed to make it better somehow.

Re:Academics

[ottothecow]

Right, because the best choice would be someone who seriously believes that replacing our arbitrarily valued currency with vaults full of arbitrarily valued metal will fix everything wrong with our economy.

Re:Academics

[ArsonSmith]

I don't think he ever once said it would fix everything. It would seriously help though to have it based on something that the supply isn't as easily gained as hitting a print button.

Re:Academics

[hazem]

Just another feel good appointment of an academic to a position where they can't really do anything

Yeah, I just don't see what good it would be to have someone who's known for being able to deal with large amounts of complex information and present it in easy-to-understand ways... especially an academic. I mean, just look at what horrible failure it was to have that academic Richard Feynman on the committee studying the Challenger explosion. Those ivory tower types just have no grasp on how things really work.

So, clearly you don't like Obama or Tufte... who do YOU recommend be put on this committee? And if you don't think the committee should exist, what do you suggest for better tracking and visibility of the stimulus funds?

Re:Academics

[nedlohs]

Because requiring some discipline on spending by not allowing the printing of arbitrary amounts of money would be such a bad thing...

And of course that isn't the only thing he has suggested and certainly wasn't proclaimed as an instant fix

Finally, the "arbitrary value" of the metal is completely irrelevant. It doesn't have to be worth anything - it just has to of limited supply. Clearly people don't care if there's nothing backing their currency so the value part is irrelevant. All that matters is the "can't print at will" part.

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing TARP and the Stimulus.

Re:Academics

[Hatta]

I think someone in favor of more regulation and not less would be best for the job.

Re:Academics

[dave981]

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2009/11/30/obamas-cabinet-this-graph-explains-a-lot/ "the previous low-water mark for private-sector experience since 1900, the JFK administration, was still three times higher than the Obama Cabinet’s level."

Re:Academics

[Hatta]

Oh you misunderstand me. I wish more (many more) academics were appointed to positions of power. I just don't think this is a position of power. You can say that you're for openness, transparency, etc. and get the political benefits without really changing anything by appointing these guys to commissions that have no real power.

Look at what Elizabeth Warren has been doing. She has been blowing the whistle constantly for the past couple years. She's been entirely ignored. What reason do i have to believe that Tufte won't be completely ignored too?

Re:Academics

[geemon]

Oh, the humor of this comment - yes, lets appoint Elizabeth Warren - you know, the Harvard law professor and noted academic. While Liz Warren has some great ideas, most professors (and particularly law professors) will tell you that it is not a good policy to appoint fellow academics to policy-making roles.

Re:Academics

[Hatta]

The modesty of academics aside, it's an even worse idea to appoint industry insiders to such a role. The fox guarding the hen house and all.

Re:Academics

[jfengel]

I don't think Ron Paul expects to end paper currency. Nor does he think that's the problem. He knows that only a tiny fraction of the money will ever be in the form of paper.

The problem, he believes, is that the currency is ultimately backed by nothing more than a government's promise to limit its availability. Printing the actual paper bills is chump change. Inventing more money is even easier than that: they just enter a number in a computer.

It's not the computers themselves he sees as the problem, but rather that the accounting rules make the total arbitrary under certain circumstances. He wants to make that impossible by fixing it to a quantity which is relatively fixed: a rare metal.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really solve the problem. For one thing, as long as there is paper currency, checks, and bank payments, rather than actual bits of gold, there's no way to enforce it. The government can set the exchange rate any way it likes. You can limit that by law, but then, you could do the same for the numbers entered into the computers.

And truly fixing the value of the currency slows the economy drastically. Fractional-reserve banking puts more money in circulation than there is backing for, but as long as that money is invested in things that turn a profit (in sum), it gets paid back and you have real economic improvements to show for it. Without it, those improvements happen far more slowly, and other countries out-compete us.

It leads to booms and busts, but those happen anyway. We saw that even when we were on a gold standard. We were on the gold standard going into the Great Depression. Breaking off the gold standard allows the big banks the flexibility to try to solve such crises, using the tools I just mentioned: fractional-reserve banking multiplying money until the crisis of confidence ends and productivity returns to pre-bust levels.

And what institution managed that? The Federal Reserve, another institution Paul despises. Paul is not a stupid man, but if he imagines that the economy was free of the boom-bust cycle before the invention of the Federal Reserve, he's simply missing history.

We may need a new solution, but the old solutions have already been disproven. That's why the Fed was created in the first place.

Re:Academics

[Dishevel]

The value of Gold (Being a rare and very useful element) is not arbitrary.

Making the rest of your statement pointless.

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

Right.. because we know how much of this rare metal the American government possesses don't we? It gets audited by independents all the time! So we know they couldn't possibly lie about it! Oh wait.. no.. no we don't.

Not to mention that linking the currency to metal in no way implies or enforces spending discipline.

Re:Academics

[khallow]

You're confusing TARP and the Stimulus.

Maybe he's confusing them with Cash for Clunkers. I can't remember which program was the one without accountability. They all look so much alike in that regard.

Re:Academics

[Vaphell]

And what institution managed that? The Federal Reserve, another institution Paul despises. Paul is not a stupid man, but if he imagines that the economy was free of the boom-bust cycle before the invention of the Federal Reserve, he's simply missing history.

1. he is not stupid - he is a strict constitutionalist. Founding fathers knew the opression from the almighty government first hand and were reluctant to give federal government more power than necessary. They chose gold and silver to be a legal tender so nobody has a print button - fiat currencies were tried in their times already and failed.

2. FED existed in 1929, as it was created in 1913, so they pretty much caused the problem and then helped to solve it? Twenties was a time of loose monetary policy of the FED and that ended with a disaster when they wanted to stop excessive debt levels. Prosperity fueled by debt is not real.

3. There was a recession of 1920 (caused by retooling to peace time production and returning soldiers sharply increasing workforce numbers), more severe than the Great Depression - it ended in 1,5 years because government did nothing to fight it. Great depression was enlarged and stretched out by failed policies meant to end it.

4. In a system were currency is stable in quantity and nobody is in charge of global interest rate any economic downturn is smaller than it would be otherwise. When people start to gamble and overinvest (prosperity) they compete for loanable funds. These funds shrink rapidly and IR raises to match high demand. Fuel for boom is cut short and it's time for slowdown. When someone regulates IR he is prone to political influences. People want prosperity so lowering IR to ridiculously low levels is more than likely (as seen after nasdaq bubble, IR=1%). The longer you keep inflating the money supply with dirt cheap money, the harder will be fallout of a disaster that's coming next. People will drive themselves into debt (because saving is not worth it at 1%) that will wipe them on any trace of slowdown causing chain reaction.
Bubble of phony prosperity was blown by the FED, just like in the 20s.

5. System with a built-in inflation punishes responsible people who underconsume and their savings are diminished by the politicians. Inflation is a hidden tax - governments steal purchasing power from people and blow it left and right on pork so they keep being elected. Inflation encourages people to spend money as fast as possible and get into debt as it will be diminished by the inflation as well. Such system is broken because everyone consumes today at the expense of tomorrow's consumption. This implies that tomorrow you have to earn more than today (someone has to pay interest), but why would that happen if you haven't invested in anything profitable but blown all money on consumption?

Re:Academics

[nedlohs]

We don't know now because it is irrelevant because it isn't backed by anything.

And yes it does enforce some spending discipline, if you can't print the money you have to tax it or borrow it. Raising taxes can result in not being elected next round. Borrowing it without being able to print up the repayments stops soon enough since you can't afford those payments.

We'll see how the next US currency does, this one is getting awfully close to the end of its lifespan. It's been almost 40 years, which is pretty long for the US which has historically changed quite often.

The main thing a backed currency gives is the reduction of government control of the money supply. Obviously if you think the government will usually do a poor job you will prefer a "backed by gold" currency. If you think the government will usually do a good job you will prefer a "fiat" currency.

Re:Academics

[Jeremy Erwin]

The intrinsic value of gold is inflated by the arbitrary value that goldbugs like to place on it.

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

The value of Gold (Being a rare and very useful element) is not arbitrary.

Making the rest of your statement pointless.

The value of anything is at least partially arbitrary! After all the the value that "The Market" assigns is just the average of the aggregate of many different values assigned during individual transactions. Furthermore, the supply, rate of consumption, and even overall demand of any given good can change dramatically due to technological and sociological conditions. Even treasure ship finds can cause cause short-term fluctuations in precious metals values. I know this is a hypothetical, but what do you think would happen to the value of gold if someone starts remotely mining a previously unreachable, yet huge, gold veins on the ocean floor or an asteroid that has about as much gold as as all known deposits on Earth?

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with that on the fact that it is the companies who own the most congressmen that write the regulations. why do you think wall street owns the white house? Hell, wall street is the fed. the past 4 administrations have shown that the fed does what wall street wants, and not visa versa

Re:Academics

[bmajik]

Actually, if you look at the bills he introduces, you could most accurately say that he beleives:

If you want to conduct your affairs in something other than Federal Reserve Notes, you shouldn't be raided by the Secret Service and have all of your assets confiscated.

[i.e. "allow competing currencies"].

He advocates free-market money; let people decide what they want to use as a medium of exchange and a store of value. And history shows that gold or other precious metals are the most common market-derived solution to this problem, but they certainly aren't the only solution.

There are a few reasons for this point of view. One is the "pure freedom" angle: the government ought not to force you to agree with it on what money is. Secondly, and more practically: inflation of the money supply has certain ramifications. The ramifications tend to be disadvantageous to savers and extremely advantageous to the investing and financier/banking classes of society.

People not close to the new money created by inflation tend to lose out. The US monetary system is kind of a prisoners dilemma problem: if you don't play [borrow and invest], you lose, because your dollars are going to become worth less and less over time, and the new wealth will accrue in the new dollars that those who _did_ "play" received.

In the absense of Legal Tender laws, people who don't want to play on the debt-financed FRN treadmill can simply opt out, and say "i refuse to do business with FRNs, and i refuse to use FRNs to denominate my wealth"

Milton Friedman, who is much less ideologically pure than RP and other Austrian economists, comes to the same practical conclusion regarding inflation: it should be limited. While Friedman beleives that state-controlled fiat money is fine, it must be judiciously guarded from inflation to be fair, ethical, successful, and so on. Naturally we haven't done that in the US... really at any point in our history of non-specie backed currency.

The only people left who think inflating-away debt and stimulus^Wdeficit spending are worthwhile endeavours are die-hard Keynesians who will say anything if it leads to retained state power, and will do anything so long as it allows them (the politically connected class) to broker favors for their moneyed benefactors.

The collusion between banking and government embodied by the FRS is really unsettling. History shows that no government, given sole control of peoples money, can long resist the urge to bend it to the political fashion of the day.

I don't think Ron Paul is putting forward unreasonable bills. He wants to open the books on the Fed. The harder you look, the more you see the ... strangeness in their affairs. He wants to allow people to NOT use FRNs without fear of federal reprisal. What's the harm in that?

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps this says more about how dimwitted you are than how clever he is.

Re:Academics

[raju1kabir]

Don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps this says more about how dimwitted you are than how clever he is.

If that were the case, wouldn't you expect that I would have the same reaction to large numbers of Yale professors and therefore not find my assessment of Tufte noteworthy enough to report? I suppose it's possible that I'm so dimwitted I didn't even make that connection.

Re:Academics

[Uberbah]

1. he is not stupid - he is a strict constitutionalist.

Oreaaaaly? What's the Constitutional basis for Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which defines human life as beginning at conception?

Founding fathers knew the opression from the almighty government first hand and were reluctant to give federal government more power than necessary.

Right, which is why all the "strict constitutionalists" also rant and rave about the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the USAF, spy satellites and NORAD. Because the Constitution only allows Congress to fund an Army and a Navy. Oh wait, they don't - which means the entire lot are political hacks.

They chose gold and silver to be a legal tender so nobody has a print button - fiat currencies were tried in their times already and failed.

Nevermind that we actually had more financial collapses under a backed currency than under a fiat currency. It's like gold bugs have excised the 19th century from their minds.

When people start to gamble and overinvest (prosperity) they compete for loanable funds. These funds shrink rapidly and IR raises to match high demand.

Nevermind that the current crisis was banks making insanely risky investments at 60:1 asset ratios. What would the gold standard done to prevent this? Nothing whatsoever. And of course we were on the gold standard when the economy crashed in 1929, for much the same reasons as it did in 2008.

There was a recession of 1920 (caused by retooling to peace time production and returning soldiers sharply increasing workforce numbers), more severe than the Great Depression - it ended in 1,5 years because government did nothing to fight it. Great depression was enlarged and stretched out by failed policies meant to end it.

Wow. You should have stopped digging a hole in your credibility when you passed Baghdad Bob. When there's a total economic collapse, the only entity that can stimulate demand is the government. Know when FDR actually made the depression worse? When he listened to fiscal conservatives and slashed spending in 1937 to cut the deficit.

Re:Academics

[skids]

While we're at it we could add defense contracts... cost-plus "burn pits" anyone? I'll bring the marshmallows. Don't mind the CN.

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

An honest, objective valuation of gold would be based on the cost of mining, refining, and applying it to conducting electricity/heat, compared to the other metals which are used to do the same (copper, aluminum, silver, lead), and possibly also the cost of recycling it. (The other oft cited useful properties of gold - mainly that it doesn't oxidize - means that you can accomplish the same amount of work with less material in the long run, which would objectively *lower* the cost of gold).

That is not what dictates the present or historical prices of gold. The price of gold has been dictated by "this shiny stuff is pretty" and by tradition like "let's make our wealth-counters out of this", both of which are entirely subjective and therefore arbitrary. If we go by the relative frequency of copper and gold available in Earth's crust, and the recent prices of them on the open market, gold is currently priced some 2-5x more than it should be. And, IMO, copper itself is also already overpriced due to its traditional uses in things like coins (arbitrary cultural choice) and home water pipes (not really a great idea compared to recent plastics, it corrodes).

Re:Academics

[lonecrow]

Try reading some of Tufte's work first. Tufte's genius is just the sort of thing we need more of so that we can better make use of the torrent of information raining down on us.

If his work is used to distort rather then reveal information I suspect he will let us know.

Re:Academics

[randyleepublic]

You are very much on the right track. Please read my sig...

Re:Academics

[Anonymous Coward]

TARP was created under the Bush Administration, but interesting point about comparing to students loans. They don't want us to know.

The right guy for the wrong job?

[KnownIssues]

Seriously though, I'm an Edward Tufte fun myself, but his statement, "And it is the complete opposite of everything else I do," is kind of funny. I know he didn't mean it literally. "Yeah my car's not working, so I hired a painter to fix it."

With 80% of green energy stimulus going overseas

[Kalendraf]

will that count as fraud, waste, or just business-as-usual?

(for more info see http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/)

surprising that Google and or MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

hasn't snapped up Tufte as a "Fellow" with an $$ offer he can't refuse. The namedropping PR benefit alone would pay for it, as far as the companies are concerned.

tufte has it easy

[circletimessquare]

just take one of the most famous graphs from his book, and reproduce it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Napoleon's_Invasion_of_Russia

relabel the advancing french soldiers "good intentions for accountable government"

relabel the retreating french soldiers "obfuscation by entrenched special interests"

job done

Re:tufte has it easy

[vlm]

just take one of the most famous graphs from his book, and reproduce it:

relabel the ....

That's not scary. Try retitling it from "Napoleons invasion of Russia" to "Bushes invasion of Iraq". That sounds possible enough to be terrifying.

Re:tufte has it easy

[rangek]

just take one of the most famous graphs from his book, and reproduce it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Napoleon's_Invasion_of_Russia

relabel the advancing french soldiers "good intentions for accountable government"

relabel the retreating french soldiers "obfuscation by entrenched special interests"

job done

Brilliant

Re:tufte has it easy

[ianare]

Not even close. Did you read the graph ? The US has never suffered these kinds of losses, in any war (by proportion of the size of its army). It IS similar to Hitler's failed attempt though, both in terms of losses, strategy, and consequences for the would-be invader : complete defeat some years later.

Re:tufte has it easy

[Quiet_Desperation]

That's not scary. Try retitling it from "Napoleons invasion of Russia" to "Bushes invasion of Iraq". That sounds possible enough to be terrifying.

Well, yeah, if you take a person and surgically remove all their knowledge of history, awareness of current events and their critical thinking center, I can see how that person might confuse the two events. Or just drop them on their head a bunch of times. That'd work, too.

Re:tufte has it easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Tufte is amazing at what he does, but credit should be given where credit is due- he didn't draw that graph. Charles Joseph Minard did.

I do agree with you though, it would be nice to see something like a Sankey diagram that shows where the money went.

Re:tufte has it easy

[mjwx]

Well, yeah, if you take a person and surgically remove all their knowledge of history, awareness of current events and their critical thinking center, I can see how that person might confuse the two events. Or just drop them on their head a bunch of times. That'd work, too.

Yes, Napoleon had a bunch of victories using new innovative tactics and actual understanding of their enemies.

Re:tufte has it easy

[Quiet_Desperation]

The OP was talking about a graph detailing troop losses, but, yes, yet another reason to find the original comparison lacking in brainwaves.

Re:tufte has it easy

[mjwx]

I know, I was being sarcastic.

Background anyone?

[2.7182]

I know about this guys books, but I fail to see why he is going to be helpful.

Re:Background anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is really, really complicated and he'll be able to put it into pictures you will be able to understand.

Re:Background anyone?

[Mab_Mass]

I know about this guys books, but I fail to see why he is going to be helpful.

Quite simply, he will be helpful because when he puts together a report, there will be one or two incredibly informative graphs that explain where the money went and how that money changed things.

By having this information in such a concise, digestible form, it will help bring transparency and accountability to the government.

One of the major issues we're having in the U.S. is that one side is saying one thing and claiming absolutely that they are right while the other side is making contradictory claims just a vocally. Getting some real, solid, hard numbers and easily understand representations of these numbers will make these kinds of useless back and forth arguments less possible.

At least that's the theory. We'll see if he can make any difference in practice.

Re:Background anyone?

[SnarfQuest]

Quite simply, he will be helpful because when he puts together a report, there will be one or two incredibly informative graphs that explain where the money went and how that money changed things.

What color is he going to use for "stuffed in underpants", which is the method Clinton's groupies used to spirit away a lot of stuff. I think brown would be a good color.

Re:Background anyone?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Quite simply, he will be helpful because when he puts together a report, there will be one or two incredibly informative graphs that explain where the money went and how that money changed things.

Heck, I could paste a picture of a black hole and a type a 200 point "0" onto a Powerpoint slide as well as this guy, and I'd charge a lot less.

By having this information in such a concise, digestible form, it will help bring transparency and accountability to the government.

Yeah, sure it will, kiddo. Sure it will.

Re:Background anyone?

[gibson123]

Tufte is amazing. I expect he'll be able to convey in an easy to understand display what is happening w/ our recovery effort. If your a bit skeptical of him, you've got to read his books

Re:Background anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

He could create the most stunning and useful presentation of garbage possible and it would still be garbage. The problem does not lie in the visualization, it lies in the abysmal data quality. When people don't understand what they're reporting and when they can't even filter for non-existent congressional districts, no amount of visualization assistance is going to help.

Re:Background anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assuming they'll give him real data and not just the same bullshit they feed the US public?

Re:Background anyone?

[CodeBuster]

At least that's the theory. We'll see if he can make any difference in practice.

In practice, political operatives will maneuver behind the scenes to ensure that whatever information the commission receives is carefully selected, filtered and sanitized so that the "right" conclusions are reached. The stakes are so high in this case that it is incredibly naïve to think that there won't be skullduggery.

Re:Background anyone?

[gibson123]

As a side note, I hope his roll expands and he can tackle other information display issues in our gov't. I would love to see a Tufte graphic regarding our taxes, spending, deficit and long term debt (including who we are borrowing from?)...

Re:Background anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only an issue if you refuse to actually think about things.

One side says the stimulus will help the economy. The other side says it won't.

Did the economy get better? Did we need a stimulus for any economic crisis in history, ever? Didn't all of those previous economic crises end without any stimulus money?

It's really not that hard to figure out who's right, you know, even before government wastes a few trillion dollars and sinks us even deeper into the tank.

Re:Background anyone?

[PatHMV]

It's not simply one or two graphs. Hopefully, he will help steer the design of the web interface for the site itself, so that users will be able to easily find and display the data they are looking for. Much of his work is also in interface design, not merely the production of graphs and charts.

Re:Background anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hope his roll expands"

So you want him to get fatter, or do some baking?

Re:Background anyone?

[seekertom]

Did ob send you here to say that? Let's not overstate the obvious, but it's the GOVT that is at fault here, not the senate, not the house, not the white castle, it's ALLUVEM! and now, after so much money has already been pissed away to the 'good ole' boys', one of the three says 'It's time we tell the folks where and how...' sure gets MY vote! We're HOW many trillion in debt now, and you want me to be pacified by this one guy? Nothing can be done to fix the money problems in this country until we get our govt under full control of us, the PEOPLE! Something like the 28th amendment might be a great place to start. Govt in the sunshine might be a second. Sorry, but adding stillanudder govt employee to the payroll is going in the wrong direction. As it is, there's the GOVT guys who GAVE all that money away in the first place, then there's the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, another GOVT group involved with the massive gift-giving, and now ya want still another layer of GOVT guys involved with the problem which is the FIRST GOVT guys who failed in their duties to the AMERICAN PEOPLE in the first place! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom

Mercy me...

[MaggieL]

This should be - v e r y - interesting indeed.

I have enormous respect for Tufte and his integrity. I can;t wait to see what happens.

Remember, this is the guy who put Stalin on the cover of his pamphlet on "The Cognitive Style Of Powerpoint"

I'm reminded of Feynman on the Columbia commission.

Re:Mercy me...

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I'm reminded of Feynman on the Columbia commission.

Always assume Isaac Newton-level political ability until proven otherwise.

Re:Mercy me...

[Anonymous Coward]

>

Always assume Isaac Newton-level political ability until proven otherwise.

We should all be so lucky. Isaac Newton eliminated coin clipping.

Re:Mercy me...

[the_other_chewey]

I'm reminded of Feynman on the Columbia commission.

Challenger. By the time Columbia went down (for - amongst other - similar reasons than Challenger),
Richard Feynman wasn't around anymore to see how little impact his statements had on NASA.

Re:Mercy me...

[Xtravar]

He's a socialist! He worships Stalin! Obama is ruining the United States once again!

Re:Mercy me...

[fprintf]

I have been to his site before, but just spent an hour there now. If I didn't need to work I think I could get lost for a few more hours. His site represents an interesting and intensive view of effective presentation of data-intensive information.

Re:Mercy me...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Challenger commission, you mean. Unless Feynman invented time travel when I wasn't looking and traveled to the future for a couple years before he went back to the past and died. Can't put it past the man...

Its mis-named so it will feel better.

[Stumbles]

It should be called the Recovery Advisory Panel Enhancement

Tufte scandal

[Jodka]

I own his books and recommend them but it seems Tufte is difficult to deal with in person. He charged credit cards for pre-orders before shipping his not-yet-published book and then called someone who politely objected to that a "whiny sanctimonious asshole."

See Flip Philips' blog entry about the scandal here

Re:Tufte scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

I own his books and recommend them but it seems Tufte is difficult to deal with in person. He charged credit cards for pre-orders before shipping his not-yet-published book and then called someone who politely objected to that a "whiny sanctimonious asshole."

See Flip Philips' blog entry about the scandal here

I can look past that "scandal" if he is going to use that same don't-mess-with-me attitude with our President.
Don't get me wrong - shame on him for being a jerk because someone called him out when he was being stupid.

Re:Tufte scandal

[Abcd1234]

Err... so? He could be the biggest asshole in the world for all I care, so long as he does a good job and injects some accountability and transparency into the process.

Re:Tufte scandal

[SharpFang]

I'm betting him being a big asshole is essential to the success of the project. Because things he's going to reveal are not nice at all, and a nice guy might try to obscure, whitewash and soften them. Only a real asshole will show them in all drastic gory glory they deserve...

Re:Tufte scandal

[Quiet_Desperation]

An asshole also might try to cover things up. That's the problem with assholes... you just never know.

Re:Tufte scandal

[kenh]

scandal

Really, a scandal? From your description it could just as easily be that Flip Philips acted like a "whiny sanctimonious asshole" on the phone when asking about charging his CC before shipping the book. I wonder if Flip made a point of reporting on this grave injustice since using Tufte's name would likely drive traffic from google and other search engines to his little blog at Skidmore...

Re:Tufte scandal

[kungfugleek]

Whether it makes him a jerk or not, it does reveal that he likes getting his money as soon as possible, even before the book was ready to ship. That's not a trait I like to see in someone in his position.

Re:Tufte scandal

[SharpFang]

Cover ugly things up and make everything seem fine and nice? Instead of flinging real dirt all around, given the opportunity?

Re:Tufte scandal

[Pence128]

I think it's more likely someone else will try to cover him up. Let's just hope he can make enough noise.

Re:Mercy on him.

[moosesocks]

What's the big stink about ACORN anyhow? Are conservatives genuinely outraged that two people in an organization of over 400,000 members know what money laundering is?

As far as I see it, Democrats are peeved that Obama's been spending a lot of time and resources to appease conservatives and moderate democrats (he has), which has come directly at the expense of the democratic "base" (much tougher to prove). I honestly can't think of another president in recent history who has given so many concessions to the minority party and his political opponents.

Appointing a respected statistician like Tufte is a great strategy, and sends the message that "I have nothing to hide." I'd love to see Nate Silver directly involved with the administration as well...

So, no Power Point presentation?

[Big_Monkey_Bird]

So, no Power Point presentation?

Re:So, no Power Point presentation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points for this one.

Stimulus is a dead issue.

[tjstork]

The stimulus is a dead issue. GOP won the round. Considering Bush essentially ran .5 stimuluses a year in deficits for 6 years and then capped it off with a stimuluses worth of bailouts for banks, its rather remarkable that the GOP could do so, but they did.

Trying to keep refighting the stimulus battle is just bad politics...

Obama ought to be a good enough fighter to know that and move on. His best hope for 2010 is to get the troops out of Iraq and declare an epic victory, then use the mantle of victory to take his case before the people.

Re:Stimulus is a dead issue.

[Uberbah]

The stimulus is a dead issue. GOP won the round.

How, by taking credit for stimulus money after having voted/opposed it, like Republican Governors and Congressmen and Senators? Like Bobby Jindal, who trashed stimulus spending in his response to Obama's SOTU speech...only to make a big show of handing out giant sized, Jindal-signed checks to programs funded with stimulus money?

Obama ought to be a good enough fighter to know that and move on.

One of the memes floated by the Obama fanboys is that he throws "rope a dopes" against Republicans. Nevermind that a rope a dope comes in two steps:

1. Let your opponent tire himself out attacking your defenses
2. Counter-attack and knock his ass out

Obama has never come close to Step 2. With anyone.

Re:Stimulus is a dead issue.

[tjstork]

Obama has never come close to Step 2. With anyone.

Dude, both political parties have gone off into total amateur hour. Republicans are ridiculous, not only for their own sudden fiscal austerity, but because they are still riding the free trade pony and even they can't ignore just how much Asia is gaming currency markets. Democrats are just well, like a kid that got handed 5 bucks in a five and dime, running around like retards not knowing what to do with themselves.

The whole world loves us now!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7396358/The-end-of-the-road-for-Barack-Obama.html

My favorite line from the article:

"Mr Obama benefited in his campaign from an idiotic level of idolatry, in which most of the media participated with an astonishing suspension of cynicism."

Sounds like what I was saying in early 2007, but no one wanted to listen. Now a foreign observer, much more impartial than our own media, is saying exactly the same thing. Gee, I thought Obama was going to usher in a new era of global peace and prosperity. What happened? I would venture to guess that it has something to do with the fact that he has never run even so much as a convenience store, and now his naivete and inexperience are catching up to his vacuous rhetoric.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rush Limbaugh was saying that long before 2007. And everyone knows Rush is always wrong. So, that guy from the UK is full of it too. Mr Obama is Mr perfect!

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Pojut]

Sounds like what I was saying in early 2007, but no one wanted to listen. Now a foreign observer, much more impartial than our own media, is saying exactly the same thing. Gee, I thought Obama was going to usher in a new era of global peace and prosperity. What happened? I would venture to guess that it has something to do with the fact that he has never run even so much as a convenience store, and now his naivete and inexperience are catching up to his vacuous rhetoric.

In Obama's defense, none of the other options were any better. McCain bends to the will of his party far too easily (we already had one puppet president for 8 years with GWB, we certainly didn't need 4 more with McCain), Ron Paul (like many third party candidates) is convinced that only his way is the right way, and everyone else was too polarizing.

Unfortunately, the extremes of the parties are the ones in control...this makes electing someone truly worthy of being president nearly impossible. You can't get anywhere in politics unless you give up your values, and once you give up your values you become worthless as a leader.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Anonymous Coward]

All good points, which could be addressed if only the American media would return to their role of impartial observer and watchdog, and not suspend disbelief for candidates who they favor.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[DigiShaman]

Not surprised.

The Republican party lost it's spine a long time ago and have splintered into many factions. Effectively, the party was dead even before the 2000 elections and since then has been without leadership.

The Democratic party however, has been very unified but has been rotting from the core since the days of JFK. Now, it too is crumbling apart with rampant thuggery and corruption.

I think we all know how the November elections will turn out. However, there is no way in hell we can foresee who the next president will be. Our political system as we know it, is fucked. I reckon this is a good thing. Perhaps now we can get people more involved with how politics happen in DC and start voting based on someones voting record, and not based purely on party. At least, I hope so.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Pojut]

I think we all know how the November elections will turn out. However, there is no way in hell we can foresee who the next president will be. Our political system as we know it, is fucked. I reckon this is a good thing. Perhaps now we can get people more involved with how politics happen in DC and start voting based on someones voting record, and not based purely on party. At least, I hope so.

This isn't an ageism thing, but I honestly feel that anyone in the house or senate over the age of 45 should not be allowed to be reelected, at least not for the next few cycles. Part of the problem is that so many people running this country are stuck in the past without an eye for the future. This worked fine in the 80's and 90's, but nowadays that just doesn't cut it.

Term limits in general would be a great thing...

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[operagost]

You have to be 35 to serve, so that leaves a rather narrow window.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Pojut]

Sorry, I should have been more specific...if over the age of 45 you wouldn't be able to be reelected for the next few cycles...but if you have never served and are over the age of 45 you can still run for election into the senate or the house.

I just meant getting the old-timey regulars outta there, not preventing old-timers in general from getting a seat.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Dishevel]

It's hard to be impartial with shivers running up your leg.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Shotgun]

That would be great. Then we could recycle all the failed policies that we've already slogged through.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[tsalmark]

Erm, Simon Heffer is a conservative mouthpiece not a beacon of public opinion.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[fprintf]

As long as this happens to everyone at the same time, cool. Unfortunately the way it works now is that you need a "senior" representative in Washington to ensure your cut of the pork pie. We are losing Senator Dodd this year, and no one wants to work with Lieberman anymore anyway, so instead of sending lots of funds to Washington and getting only a portion back, we'll likely get even less of the pie until our congressmen rise through the ranks again. For all the complaining we do about our senior congressmen, if they are successful at getting some or all of our money back, then they are doing what we need them to do.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Step one for the GOP is to toss out the evangelicals. Even Nixon warned about mixing politcis and religion. When freaking *Nixon* finds your plans lacking, you might want to run a reassessment. Most who have analyzed the situation feel they'd gain far more than they lost.

Our political system as we know it, is fucked.

It acts, in combination with the media, to filter out anyone but complete sociopaths. You have to be utterly without care about other people- what they think of you, how your decisions affect their daily lives, etc.- to run for office these days.

I reckon this is a good thing.

...whut?

Perhaps now we can get people more involved with how politics happen in DC and start voting based on someones voting record, and not based purely on party.

Bah ha ha! Yeah, good luck with that. Wasn't Obama supposed to be morning in America again? How's that working out?

At least, I hope so.

Hope is not a strategy.

Wait, got another pithy one: hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which hand fills up first.

OK, now you can admonish me about how my hateful cynicism will never solve anything and perhaps something vaguely erudite on self fulfilling prophecies.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't an ageism thing, but I honestly feel that anyone in the house or senate over the age of 45 should not be allowed to be reelected, at least not for the next few cycles. Part of the problem is that so many people running this country are stuck in the past without an eye for the future. This worked fine in the 80's and 90's, but nowadays that just doesn't cut it.

Term limits in general would be a great thing...

Okayyyyyyy......... You obviously don't live in California. Living here would show you what term limits do to government. Under term limits the political process here has become completely partisan with no desire to work with the other side on anything at all and no compromise at all. Why? Because the politician is in office here for such a short amount of time that they 1)Do not have any time to develop any relationships to anybody other than there partisan base and 2) They don't have to worry about the policies/laws they pass, they're not going to be around to face the repercussions of their actions.

And your "example" of the 80's and 90's bears this out. Under Pete Wilson, California had a budget deficit that was quite severe. He got together with both parties and they dealt with it very easily. Some things got cut, some taxes got raised. Neither side got all of what it wanted, but all got something. All in all, good politics. Compare that to the current situation where California has the budget deficit. Both parties don't want to budge one bit on anything. Why? 1) they don't have any political capital, since that is gotten with age and time in office (thank term limits for that) and 2) They are a bunch of newbies (since we have term limits) who don't have any experience with compromising. Basically, they'll let the state suffer while they argue and 3) We don't have any "old hands" who have seen this before and know how we got out of it the last time.

In short, there are some advantages to having "career politicians" that are not obvious. Every job needs experienced people in it and politics is no different. You may dislike some of aspects of that (i.e. people stuck in the past) but I can assure you that I'd prefer that to the non-experienced people we have running this state right now.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[lavaface]

You have to be 35 to be president. The age requirement for the Senate is 30 and the House of Representatives is 25.While I agree that representatives who are stuck in the past should be voted out of office, having an age limit is probably counterproductive. There are many progressive seniors and many youngsters cling to antiquated notions about how the world works.

my .02

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[welcher]

The telegraph is a conservative paper, there is nothing impartial about it. If you look at the coverage of the US election campaign over there, you'll find people were taking sides just like anywhere else.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[pdabbadabba]

he has never run even so much as a convenience store

I realize this is really only intended as empty rhetoric but, come on. Here are a few things Obama has run, for everyone's information:

The Harvard law Review
Chicago's Developing Communities Project (DCP)
Illinois's Project Vote
Chicago Annenberg Challenge
Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services
U.S. Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs

Now, I realize that it is at least arguable that none of these provide the leadership experience required to be an effective president. You probably would like to have seen a former governor/mayor/head of a large agency. I don't think that sort of experience is strictly necessary, but I see how reasonable people could disagree. (Though, if I may ask, what leadership experience does John McCain have that qualifies him in your eyes? Is it just length of service in the Senate?)

But to say that Obama has not run so much as a convenience store is just totally false and it smacks of an either mean spirited (or, at best, willfully ignorant) parroting of the popular right-wing line that Obama is somehow a lightweight.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps. I was disappointed too in the things he has done since gaining office. But can you imagine what the other lizard er McCain would have done if he got elected? Man you people had no choice.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Coryoth]

Unfortunately, the extremes of the parties are the ones in control...

Really? The last election was a close fought battle between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich? I must have missed that .... Perhaps you should check out what the extremes of the parties actually are?

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[khallow]

There's a point to the complaint. A convenience store has a concrete, objective measure of whether it succeeds or not. Namely, can the owner keep it in business? None of the above jobs has such a criteria. Obama could have (and to be honest, probably did) job hopped from position to position without doing anything consequential or net beneficial. I notice that you didn't include Obama's two books. That would be valid experience, assuming he wrote them, which again he probably did not.

In sum, while we know where Obama has been, we don't have a good idea of how well he did, simply because these aren't jobs which depend on performance or success (aside from getting elected). I think that ends up being very relevant when discussing Obama's career.

As an aside, it's worth considering G. W. Bush's work experience. He had real jobs, but it became clear that he got bailed out in ways that no regular business person could have managed. That threw up warning flags for me in the 2000 election (just as several other politicians' work experience has done so since).

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those organizations is "for profit" nor are they manufacturing. With the exception of the Law Review all of those groups just seek to spend others money and do not have ANY revenue other than handouts from public coffers.

In no case are there any difficult decisions required nor is there any long term accountability in the 'running' of those groups.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Bassman59]

Not surprised.

The Republican party lost it's spine a long time ago and have splintered into many factions. Effectively, the party was dead even before the 2000 elections and since then has been without leadership.

True, it's splintered into factions (Teabaggers vs business conservatives vs religious wackos) but in the current Congress it has been remarkably unified. It says "No!" to everything. Of course, it's easy to be the minority opposition. You don't have to have any ideas on how to solve problems and move the country forward. (As an example of what happens when Republicans are fully in power, look to Arizona. Here the Republicans remain unified and committed to "No!" Our state is on beyond fucked.)

The Democratic party however, has been very unified but has been rotting from the core since the days of JFK. Now, it too is crumbling apart with rampant thuggery and corruption.

What Democratic party are you talking about? In what bizarro world is it unified? Asshats like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln seem to want to be all "mavericky" like that idiot McCain and his boyfriend Joe Lieberman, so any notion of party unity is a pipe dream. As for "rotting at the core," this happens as the Blue Dogs triangulate and try to have it all ways instead of having any principles.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Bassman59]

Step one for the GOP is to toss out the evangelicals. Even Nixon warned about mixing politcis and religion. When freaking *Nixon* finds your plans lacking, you might want to run a reassessment. Most who have analyzed the situation feel they'd gain far more than they lost.

Absolutely. If your belief in some mystical imaginary higher power is the most important thing in your life, you are unqualified for public office. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that evangelicals remember to breathe.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Bassman59]

he has never run even so much as a convenience store

I realize this is really only intended as empty rhetoric but, come on. Here are a few things Obama has run, for everyone's information:

The Harvard law Review Chicago's Developing Communities Project (DCP) Illinois's Project Vote Chicago Annenberg Challenge Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services U.S. Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs

Now, I realize that it is at least arguable that none of these provide the leadership experience required to be an effective president. You probably would like to have seen a former governor/mayor/head of a large agency. I don't think that sort of experience is strictly necessary, but I see how reasonable people could disagree. (Though, if I may ask, what leadership experience does John McCain have that qualifies him in your eyes? Is it just length of service in the Senate?)

But to say that Obama has not run so much as a convenience store is just totally false and it smacks of an either mean spirited (or, at best, willfully ignorant) parroting of the popular right-wing line that Obama is somehow a lightweight.

And let's remember that this experience was a LOT more relevant than George W Bush's term as Governor of Texas. Texas has a constitutionally weak governor.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Bassman59]

Perhaps. I was disappointed too in the things he has done since gaining office. But can you imagine what the other lizard er McCain would have done if he got elected? Man you people had no choice.

Had McCain been elected we would be fighting "insurgents" in Iran as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Anonymous Coward]

You say antiquated like it's a bad thing. Care to look around at the world, at youth violence, at divorce rates, at teen pregnancy rates, at high school drop out rates, at, well, just about everything having to do with family and growing up and tell me that old antiquated ideas are bad?

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[DigiShaman]

As for "rotting at the core," this happens as the Blue Dogs triangulate and try to have it all ways instead of having any principles.

I have a question, and this applies to everyone in Congress regardless of party. What principles do you speak up that aren't self-serving?

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[DigiShaman]

They remember to breath on faith. All joking aside, when one party disenfranchises a group of potential voters, the other party will snatch them up for the votes. They are, above and beyond all else, a resource come election time. I'm not saying that viewing it through that lens is moral/ethical, but rather that's just how politics work.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[pdabbadabba]

This sounds like a lot of the same wilful ignorance.

A convenience store has a concrete, objective measure of whether it succeeds or not. Namely, can the owner keep it in business? None of the above jobs has such a criteria.

Really? Non profits can and do go out of business all the time. But, for example, in the case of DCP we know that in the three years Obama was there he grew the organization from one (him) to 13 employees, and from an annual budget of $70,000 to $400,000. (While being paid $13,000/year, by the way.)

And in any event, are you seriously telling me that you think running a convenience store is a better qualification to be president than being the president of the Harvard Law Review?

[Writing his books] would be valid experience, assuming he wrote them, which again he probably did not.

Supposedly he wrote both of them. It certainly makes sense for the first one: he was just out of law school at that point and didn't have the money to hire a ghostwriter. (Not to mention that he was pretty much a nobody when the book came out, so why hire a ghostwiter?) And his editor says he didn't use one for The Audacity of Hope either. See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/22/opinion/main3865576.shtml

Again, I'm not saying that I think that these jobs necessarily qualify one to be president (I think they're mostly irrelevant). I'm just struck by the willingness of some to jump to these sorts of conclusions to paint Obama in the worst light possible when they could just think and Google for five minutes.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[khallow]

And in any event, are you seriously telling me that you think running a convenience store is a better qualification to be president than being the president of the Harvard Law Review?

I wasn't, but yes, running a convenience store is better qualification in my view than being the president of the Harvard Law Review. You're actually running a business, taking serious risks, and dealing with the logistics of running a business. The latter is a student organization with secure funding, established infrastructure, and no significant risk (aside from the possibility that work might detract from your other scholarly activities).

I think lack of risk taking is another significant issue here. Obama might have taken a large personal risk with the DCP organization, but in my view he hasn't since. Not getting elected for one of the many offices he tried for, wouldn't have been a serious setback, unlike having a business go bankrupt while taking your savings with it.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[pdabbadabba]

Interesting. I'm not sure that I see personal risk taking to be such an important qualification for a president, but I can see how one might. (And, to be sure, I certainly do think it has some importance. I just don't see how it's crucial.) Other than military service (kudos, then, John McCain), though, would you agree that there are pretty few national politicians that have taken serious personal risks?

As for Obama's risk-taking past, there is certainly no denying that things have always gone well for him. I would argue that this is mostly because he is incredibly intelligent and talented politically (as well as in a number of other ways). But the fact does remain that one could make the argument that this past means that he is not accustomed to dealing with high-stakes decisions. There may be something to that. (Though, again, I would count this as, at most, a single substantial mark against Obama in the face of many marks in favor.)

It bears pointing out, though, that after graduating Harvard law and working for a big law firm for a few years (presumably to help pay off his student loan debt; I'm in law school now so I certainly know how this goes!) he left BigLaw and the $150,000/yr+ salary that comes with it to go into community organizing and civil rights. This decision might not fit neatly into the definition of risk-taking behavior, but it does, I think, clearly show that Obama is capable of making difficult choices.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[khallow]

Interesting. I'm not sure that I see personal risk taking to be such an important qualification for a president, but I can see how one might. (And, to be sure, I certainly do think it has some importance. I just don't see how it's crucial.) Other than military service (kudos, then, John McCain), though, would you agree that there are pretty few national politicians that have taken serious personal risks?

Yes, I consider this a serious problem in politics in general. A significant part of the US's well being depends on calculated risk taking, particularly in business matters (but elsewhere as well). It hurts the US's future to have people who don't understand risk taking to be in control of so much.

It bears pointing out, though, that after graduating Harvard law and working for a big law firm for a few years (presumably to help pay off his student loan debt; I'm in law school now so I certainly know how this goes!) he left BigLaw and the $150,000/yr+ salary that comes with it to go into community organizing and civil rights. This decision might not fit neatly into the definition of risk-taking behavior, but it does, I think, clearly show that Obama is capable of making difficult choices.

Two things to remember here. First, the opportunities and benefits of that time were different from today. I doubt there were $150k salaries for most legal staff, much less entry level positions. He'd still have to "pay his dues" at a much lower salary. And while I usually downplay Obama's racial troubles, he may have faced some sort of glass ceiling (real or perceived). Finally, going to school in the late 70s and early 80s would have been a lot cheaper than it is today.

Glancing at his work history, I only see one year of work at Business International Corp. The other year was at New York Public Interest Research Group, a student run group (looks like political advocacy to me at a guess). Looks to me like Obama went into a public advocacy career from the beginning. Most such people who do that are chewed up and spit out. He got a bit of luck with the DCP and was able to turn that into a serious organization in three years and a future political career. I would consider that a good example of risk taking that worked.

The thing is though that the sort of work that Obama did (politician, community organizer) has nothing to do with what most people do nor I suspect with work that creates economic value. The thing to remember about organizations like the DCP, is that they can function well even if they don't work. They require donations and donors often don't know or care what the organization actually does or doesn't do.

For example, we speak of the DCP growing its budget to $400k a year in three years. If that was a for-profit business, then it'd be a clear win since more profit is the point (a clear goal). But is it a good idea for a non-profit? I don't see that merely having a larger budget translates into a more effective program. The confusion of funding with achievements is a key problem I have with non-profits. Too many of them are effectively run as for-profit businesses at the expense of their supposed purpose. I feel that Obama's employment (as well as most politicians' employment records) was treated with a great deal of naivety and lack of nuance.

Re:The whole world loves us now!

[Da_Biz]

I wasn't, but yes, running a convenience store is better qualification in my view than being the president of the Harvard Law Review. You're actually running a business, taking serious risks, and dealing with the logistics of running a business. The latter is a student organization with secure funding, established infrastructure, and no significant risk (aside from the possibility that work might detract from your other scholarly activities).

Ironic that you say "convenience store," something that a member of my family happens to run. For one thing "running a business" looks very different at a convenience store vs. a large corporation. Arguably, both can make a profit and be "successful," but very few would consider the mechanics of business experience to be all that similar.

Government is not a business (it's present to serve the public, not make a profit), isn't into taking serious risks (would you like it if we changed the rules daily on your drive to work?), and dealing with business logistics (believe you me, moving cases of beer and maintaining inventory isn't hard--you should see the staff that do it).

At least we know...

[brennz]

Whatever they produce will contain pretty graphs.

Re:At least we know...

[localman57]

No, it won't. Tufte's whole point is that the focus should be on the data, and that anything that doesn't contribute to understanding ("chart junk") should be dropped. It may well contain elegant graphs, though. The other thing you can count on is that Tufte won't let them pull dirty tricks, such as using log scales, charts with a y axis other than 0, non-propotional areas, etc.

I'd reccomend both his books and his seminar to anyone, by the way. You'll never look at another graph or powerpoint wihtout critiqeing it.

Re:At least we know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here. Tufte is the first person to say that often a simple table of important data is the best presentation.

Re:With 80% of green energy stimulus going oversea

[polar red]

US windturbine firms are just late to the party, and they'll catch up.
even so : the grants go back into the US economy, largely because transporting turbine parts is a [VERY] large part of the cost of a turbine, so producing them locally is important.

Uhhh...

[Cornwallis]

Didn't this horse already leave the barn?

Dumb question

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Shouldn't this post have been created first, *before* the gov't let loose billions of our taxpayer dollars, seems once in the wild, tracking that cash is going to be difficult.

Re:Dumb question

[Sockatume]

If only we could radio-label bailout cash. It would assist in tracking, and act as a self-interest disincentive for it to be stockpiled in executive bonuses.

Re:Dumb question

[ianare]

It was the previous administration that started giving out the money. Since they had nothing but contempt for any kind of tracking or accountability (see : e-mail fiasco), there's no surprise there.

Re:Dumb question

[goldspider]

"Shouldn't this post have been created first, *before* the gov't let loose billions of our taxpayer dollars, seems once in the wild, tracking that cash is going to be difficult."

That would imply the stimulus wasn't *designed* to work like a giant slush fund.

Re:Dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, "post first?!"

Re:Dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the previous administration that started giving out the money. Since they had nothing but contempt for any kind of tracking or accountability (see : e-mail fiasco), there's no surprise there.

Right, because if the last guy (who was ridiculed for his intelligence) did X, why should we expect the new guy (who is praised for his intelligence) to do anything better with Y? Remember, they each had their own bailouts...

Re:Dumb question

[khallow]

It was the previous administration that started giving out the money.

Bush did it first so it must be correct and proper?

Re:Dumb question

[Pence128]

make it strong enough, and it would be really easy to track too. just look at the most recent cases of testicular cancer.

RAPE, er.... RAIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, RAIP? They could have at pretended they weren't raping us by coming up with a more disguised name.

Efficiency

[Pete Venkman]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to keep up with where the money goes AS IT GOES OUT THE DOOR? The way this panel is doing it now is just a waste of even more resources, and it provides a little time for the recipients to come up with some more BS to explain why all their execs needed multi-million dollar bonuses for running their companies into the ground.

Re:what a joke

[jdossey]

what a joke. this entire administration has turned into a global laughing stock.

They always were a joke. They just hid the fact better than some others.

Re:Mercy on him.

[timeOday]

I honestly can't think of another president in recent history who has given so many concessions to the minority party and his political opponents.

He's playing right into their strategy - demand compromise, bring everything to a halt and complain about being shut out, then label Obama as weak and ineffectual.

You have to be kidding. Really?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the classic case of a fox guarding the chicken coop.

You know that graph is over 100 years old, right?

[spun]

Tufte may have used that graph, but Charles Joseph Minard made it, way back in 1869. Minard was an early pioneer in data visualization, and Tufte says that particular graph "may well be the best statistical graphic ever drawn."

didja follow the link in my comment?

[circletimessquare]

jackass

Re:didja follow the link in my comment?

[spun]

Pft, you didn't make it clear in your comment that the graph was not by Tufte. Anyone following the link will see that it's by Minard, but this is Slashdot. "Following the link," "reading the story" and even "reading the summary" are not common practices here.

Not for long!

[dazedNconfuzed]

Yes, I trust Tufte will do an admirable job of rendering such information clear and concise. The truth will be unassailable.

At which point the Obama will realize that the waste and futility of the "stimulus package[s]" will be crystal-clear to voters, the graphs & explanations will be suppressed, and Tufte quietly shown the door.

Wrong guy for the job. Tufte and Chicago-way politics is like oil and water.

This is easy

[TheUglyAmerican]

The whole lot of it is fraud and waste perpetrated by politicians on the tax paying public. My bill is in the mail.

No mercy!

[Quiet_Desperation]

This should be - v e r y - interesting indeed. [snicker snack] Remember, this is the guy who put Stalin on the cover of his pamphlet

Wow. Is that what teh kids consider - e d g y - these days?

my link reproduces exactly what you say

[circletimessquare]

in your comment, complete with the comment by tufte about menard's graph verbatim

the old joke about no one on slashdot following the link is not some sort of technical specification that must be understood and adhered to, its a mea culpa that slashdot readers, like you, suck

but, gee, thanks for reducing the comment thread to an inept braindead echo chamber

Re:my link reproduces exactly what you say

[spun]

Get off your fucking high horse you anti social misfit. If I want to be pedantic I'm going to be pedantic and whiny little bitches like you sure aren't going to stop me.

"My link reproduces..." yeah, yeah, whatever. Put it in the comment. Woulda taken you five extra seconds to write "Just take one of the most famous graphs, by Charles Minard..."

But the real issue here is that your attempt at cleverness falls totally fucking flat. You do realize that in that graph, time reverses for the lower line, right? Time goes right to left for the retreat, dumbass. Meaning, 'obfuscation by entrenched special interests' is going DOWN over time, is that what you are trying to say? Idiot.

God damn you are clueless. Every time you get it in your head to fuck with me, I make you look like an idiot. Why do you continue to insist on playing that game, when you know you will lose, every single time.

Re:Mercy on him.

[kenh]

What's the big stink about ACORN anyhow?

It's not the incompetent job they did registering voters,,, (Note, incompetent does not mean "criminal")
It's not the money laundering charges... (Although they probably had a legal obligation to report someone planning to commit a crime, BIANAL)

What it is, is their financial structure, they way the bring in money from the federal government to, say, help lower-income folks secure affordable housing, but the federal funds wind up disappearing into the corporate structure and funding other activities (AIG executive homes bus tours in CT, paying for campaign activities, etc.).

The kids dressed up as pimps and ho's were simply the final straw that put ACORN on the radar of the mainstream media...

GIGO

[DerekLyons]

so long as he does a good job and injects some accountability and transparency into the process.

Tufte isn't being hired to inject accountability and transparency into the process, he's being hired because he's somewhat of a media darling. All he can do is produce very pretty guaranteed-to-be-popular (among certain demographics) visual representation of whatever data he is given. If the data is garbage, then his graphs will be pretty, clear, and convey the data in an understandable fashion but will be utterly irrelevant.
 
It's not really clear to me what Tufte is supposed to be accomplishing here. Pretty graphs are pretty graphs, but the real truth is in the numbers and analysis, and Tufte isn't a numbers and analysis guy. Also, Tufte's best work appears to be in 'forensic graphology' - taking a graph and comparing it post facto to the data, the complete opposite of what he's going to be doing here.

could you do me a favor?

[circletimessquare]

currently you have me listed as a friend

could you update that and remove that status?

thanks

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox

Re:could you do me a favor?

[spun]

You could just mark me as a foe. But I do actually like you when you aren't being whiny. Grow a thicker skin, man, this is the Internet.

Re:With 80% of green energy stimulus going oversea

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct that the turbines are a large part of the cost. Unfortunately, it's still more cost effective to manufacture them overseas and import them, which is why so much of the green stimulus money is getting sent overseas. Despite the stimulus efforts, most U.S. wind mfg firms have been losing jobs to overseas.

The companies that build the hardware for wind farms are relocating to China because of Chinese import laws. If they make them there they can sell them in both China and the U.S. equally. If they make them in the U.S., they are limited to how many they can sell in China.

Seems like the U.S. could learn from this and consider adopting a similar set of laws for various products.

"Grow a thicker skin, man, this is the Internet."

[circletimessquare]

"Get off your fucking high horse you anti social misfit. If I want to be pedantic I'm going to be pedantic and whiny little bitches like you sure aren't going to stop me."

LOL

Re:"Grow a thicker skin, man, this is the Internet

[spun]

Those are just terms of endearment, like your initial use of the word jackass.

A woman in charge of the checkbook?

[Anonymous Coward]

A woman in charge of the government check book? I don't think so.... We need somebody with some balls.

Re:A woman in charge of the checkbook?

[sonicmerlin]

On the other hand, when the man of the house has been spending like a drunken gambling addict in Las Vegas, the woman has to step up and put a stop to the madness to keep the family boat from completely sinking. Of course nowadays in America she'd just file for divorce, take the kids and pretend she'd made her and her kids' life better by cutting off all ties to her past, but that's another point entirely.

Re:Mercy on him.

[moosesocks]

Have any of these claims actually been established and/or verified?

The money laundering thing occurred after a team of undercover reporters virtually coaxed it out of the volunteers (and had tried to do so several dozen times before one fell for the bait), while I've never seen any sort of verification of the other claims from a reputable (ie. non-pundit) source.

To be perfectly honest, it smells a lot like the swiftboat "scandal"

You've got to be kidding me...

[sean.peters]

Unfortunately, the extremes of the parties are the ones in control...

Unless by "extremes of the parties" you mean the rightmost extremes of both parties, I think you've gone round the bend. If the extreme left wing of the Democrats had been in control, Dennis Kucinich would have been the nominee. That guy really is far to the left. Obama? There are few Democrats more centrist. Just a quick example: health care. The current plan in play in Congress is almost exactly the same as the one Mitt freakin' Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts. Until recently, this would have been a Republican health care plan - the mainstream opinion among Democrats is that single-payer is the way to go.

Regardless of your personal preferences on issues like health care, it's an absolute fact that the Democratic party is controlled by highly centrist types, and the Republican party is being run by, not to put too fine a point on it, whackjobs.

evaluate net impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if we assume that all the money is well spent on public goods - which is incredibly naive - we are missing the most important issue. Every dime the government spends must come from taxes or deficit, both of which damage the current or future economy. Therefor the net effect of the stimulus bill was negative!

Re:"Grow a thicker skin, man, this is the Internet

[alan_dershowitz]

mommy daddy stop fighting

Expose the obivous?

[recharged95]

Apply spark lines for every federal department?


I'm sure if he did that, that the lines would all go "downward"--which is something we already know.



Remember Metcalf...

Mod parent up

[Starlet Monroe]

The one week this year I haven't had mod points...and this is modded flamebait why?

Re:Mod parent up

[ArsonSmith]

for one thing the biggest argument for fiat currency was so the government could regulate the boom/bust business cycle. It has shown not only to worsen it by making the booms and busts bigger but has also been shown to be abused horribly.

Re:Mod parent up

[Starlet Monroe]

But see, this is the discussion we should be having, which if anything should make the parent +1 Interesting, Even Though I May Not Agree. That's all I'm saying.

Stiglitz says the Fed is corrupt

[rsborg]

And what institution managed that? The Federal Reserve, another institution Paul despises. Paul is not a stupid man, but if he imagines that the economy was free of the boom-bust cycle before the invention of the Federal Reserve, he's simply missing history. We may need a new solution, but the old solutions have already been disproven. That's why the Fed was created in the first place.

The issue isn't that we have an imperfect solution to the problem, it's that the imperfect solution has been degraded by corruption. We need to the fear of the citizens into the Fed. Right now, they (unelected) are effectively controlling government (elected) when it should be the other way around.

Re:Stiglitz says the Fed is corrupt

[jfengel]

Right now, they (unelected) are effectively controlling government (elected) when it should be the other way around.

The Board of Governors is appointed in precisely the way the Supreme Court is appointed.

The member banks are privately owned. I thought that private ownership was precisely what Paul would want. But as private institutions they're even less accountable than government ones.

I'd be more impressed if the hired Stegliz and

[NoBozo99]

Warren and fired Timmy G. and Larry S.

simple task

[TheSHAD0W]

I don't see why they need to hire such an illustrious researcher for such a simple task. I've prepared an accurate IMO data visualization of the results of the Federal stimulus spending. It can be viewed at:

http://shambala.net/stimulusvisualization.jpg

Re:"Grow a thicker skin, man, this is the Internet

[sonicmerlin]

You two scare me.

RON PAUL!

[Anonymous Coward]

RON PAUL! He can do it this time!

Re:RON PAUL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming he is still alive. By the time 2012 rolls around, he will be over 9000 years old.

Re:"Grow a thicker skin, man, this is the Internet

[apoc.famine]

Don't worry about the noises you hear this evening little Alan. That's just mommy and daddy saying that they still love each other.

Have to be able to make more buckets

[snowwrestler]

Dollars are just buckets for wealth. When people sell off stocks en masse, you need more buckets (dollars) to catch all the wealth they pump out of them.

Imagine if buckets were made of gold. They wouldn't be much help in a flood because people would hoard them instead of using them. When that happens to dollars it's called deflation and it has a nasty effect on an economy.

But anyway, I believe we were talking about Treasury Secretary not Fed chairman. Ron Paul as Sec. Treasury would probably have a different problem--closing down all the regulators to let the market "fix itself."

Only the President

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the President has to be 35. The limits for other offices are lower: 30 and 25.

More vs. Less is the wrong way to look at it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would prefer having effective regulation, rather than being reduced to evaluating plans based on whether they contain more rules or fewer.

The law is like a computer program. I would rather have one that works well and has been thoroughly debugged, as opposed to one with more or fewer lines of source code (e.g. more or less regulation).

But that's just me...

Overrated+Overpriced=Gov'tal "Action"

[wrencherd]

Tufte is pretty overrated, and his books are unbelievably overpriced.

Hmmmm . . . maybe being a gov't consultant is right up his alley.

Re:Mercy on him.

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, it's funded by the same people.

No.

[gbutler69]

Didn't all of those previous economic crises end without any stimulus money?

In fact, the government has always spent it's way out of economic crises. It is the foundation of Keynesian economics!

Oh, yes, the unity of the Democrats. *snort*

[weston]

The Democratic party however, has been very unified... since the days of JFK.

Yeah. Right.

Look, if you're far enough to the Right, it's not hard to see why this might be an easy mistake to make. Kind of like that old New Yorker cover. Funny because it's partly true, but don't point too much while you laugh, because everybody does something like this, even though it's wrong. Do a little bit of reading about the drama around the 1964 and 1968 Democratic national conventions. Or on the heavy tension between the DLC and traditional Democrats over the last two decades. When you finally get to the point where you realize the Clinton was arguably right of Eisenhower or Nixon on economic matters, you'll be ready to comment on this.

The Republican party lost it's spine a long time ago and have splintered into many factions. Effectively, the party was dead even before the 2000 elections and since then has been without leadership.

The Republican party of the last 30-40 years has certainly had some schisms, and party leadership was therefore necessarily not governing as all its voting constituency might have wanted it to. But it was pretty effectively executing its (again, leadership's) political plans up through the K Street scandals 3-5 years ago, and possibly through the end of 2008 (a Norquist Republican might find the most practical way to shrink the government is to bankrupt it).