We seem to be having an effect

Meg is peeved.
"I have to admit to a bit of private hilarity at the multiple accusations that I couldn't possibly have read Jon Chait's book because a mere thirty six hours before I posted my review of it, I complained of not having a copy."
She's off by about an hour, by my math. (The TPM post isn't time stamped but the post where she admitted not reading the book was stamped 9:12 AM, Sept 10, and she posted at 8 the next day to tell us the TPM post was up. So that's 35 hours. Minus approximately 8 for sleep, say roughly an hour for bathrooming and showering, another 2 hours for eating and grooming, an hour for travel to and from 'work', totals 12 hours, leaving her 23. She also posted 5 times, so, being generous and saying she averages roughly an hour's work per post, we're down to 18. However, that Tuesday was 9/11. She doesn't say whether she took any time to mark the unfortunate anniversary, but considering how loudly she proclaims her NYC roots (and folks, there's 12-20 million of us here, depending on how you define a New Yorker, so don't give her credit for being representative) it seems safe to say she might have taken an hour or so to think about it. So we'll give her 17 hours to read and prepare. Back to you, Meg,
"I hadn't realized that so many people considered reading a 250-page book, set in the EZ Reader Xtra Large typeface popular among political polemics, such a heroic feat. I'm sorry to disappoint, but shortly after that post, I borrowed a copy from my colleague Matt Yglesias, then sat down and read the book."
I don't consider reading a 250 page book in 17 hours to be difficult. It could probably be done in 5 hours or less, but let's say it took her about 7 hours, with breaks for stretching and getting a new Diet Coketini. That leaves a solid 10 hours for research and preparation and writing. And remember, that's with ample time for sleeping, eating, grooming, and etc factored in. In undergrad terms, 10 hours is a lifetime.
Her finished piece was 1750 words, which is 5 pages, give or take half a page or so. 2 hours a page. If this were an undergrad reaction paper she'd be golden.
But, well.....
It ain't an undergrad reaction paper. Sadly, it reads like one, but this is supposed to be the work of a..... damn this is hard to write.... professional journalist. These are people who are paid to be informed about a topic, so that they can help inform others. To Megan, that means talking about herself, and then talking about what people are saying about her. The TPM piece does not contain a single quote from Chait's book. I'll repeat that, because it bears repeating. In 1750 words about a book, Megan does not quote it a single time. That would make this a failing undergrad paper. There's a link to a goddamn PJ O'Rourke piece, but not a single word from the text in question. Her Works Cited page would consist of a picture of her ass.
So, Megan, let me help you out. It's not that we don't believe you read the book, tho, frankly, I still doubt your word on that, it's that you didn't actually talk about the book. You failed to contribute to the discussion, in ways that suggested you didn't properly prepare. That you've chosen to revisit the issue 9 days later and try to prove you did read it doesn't help your case. If anything, it suggests you recognize the validity of the criticisms leveled against you, and they stuck in your craw. We've moved on, as you provide ample new material every day. (Except on Fridays and weekends.)
But getting back to this book discussion, as I said earlier, the job of a professional journalist, or critic, is to be informed about the topic at hand. Simply reading the book may be enough for undergrad papers, but adult professionals are expected to genuinely know what they're talking about. As in reading the book a couple times, reading the reviews of the book, reading scholarly pieces responding to the economic content, reading related texts on the topic, maybe even, and I know this is mindblowing to you, emailing the author questions to make sure you understand him properly. Your kneejerk response, Megan, is worth jack shit. Even if you did read the book, you failed to meet the standards millions of undergrads manage every day, and you're no undergrad.
This, just maybe, might be an example of how you're dragging The Atlantic into a pit of sub-mediocrity. You're not even adequate. (And yes, I know TPM isn't The Atlantic, but let's not quibble.)
But hey, you know Matt Yglesias personally!
Ugh.
Fire Megan McArdle.

That's her story, and she's sticking to it - for now

Today, Megan revisits her TPM Cafe "review" of Chait to defend herself from the likes of Sadly, No! in her own inimitable style:

I have to admit to a bit of private hilarity at the multiple accusations that I couldn't possibly have read Jon Chait's book because a mere thirty six hours before I posted my review of it, I complained of not having a copy. I hadn't realized that so many people considered reading a 250-page book, set in the EZ Reader Xtra Large typeface popular among political polemics, such a heroic feat.

Well actually, Megan, it was partially that, and partially the fact that your review itself provided no evidence that you'd actually read the book. And just an FYI - nobody really believed your claims of reading 1700 pages of Stephen King over the course of a weekend anyway.

Then, reminding me of sooooo many of the undergrads I've taught over the years, she goes on and provides a (small) bit of belated evidence that she's read the book now, and acting like that proves she read the book at the time it was assigned.

Megastats & Goofy Language

Megastats for 19 September 2007:
# of items: 11
Items well distributed throughout the day.

Line count:
Strictly by eyeball today, but we give our muse an approx. 1:1 ratio for Copy & Paste vs. original typing. One complaint: the last item, in its entirety, is this:

Half of all French children under five have never brushed their teeth.

Dep't. of WTF?:

Either the government, or private insurers, are self-evidently willing to pay for couture medicine in a way that other countries are not.

"Couture medicine?" (Not to mention the use of "self-evidently.")

The EITC seems to function less as a wage boost than as a system of forced savings for the poor.

How libertarian. We'll just force the poor (Note that it's never "poor people," simply "the poor." Except when it's "marginal members of the labor force.") to save. After all, they're poor, they really don't deserve any of the personal liberty to decide for themselves what to do w/ their money that the wealthy have earned.

[P]oor people who were overpaid the credits in the beginning of the year are vanishingly unlikely to have the money to cover a shortage at year's end.

Entirely new use of the word "vanishingly." I might go out on a limb and think she meant something like, "Funny how the poor's money just vanishes, what w/ their quaint habits of paying utility bills & rent, & eating, & all the other things they do, instead of saving for a better car so it'll be easier for them to get to their soul-crushing, low-paying, dead-end job six days a week." And then she goes ahead & says it:

[M]oney that would otherwise trickle away on small sundries can instead be put towards a reliable car to get to work, a rental deposit, or something else that measurably improves their lives.

Thank goodness for libertarians, who want us to be free of interference in our lives. Unless they're "measurably improving" other peoples' lives.

[T]the vast majority of law-firm associates I know are actively looking for jobs that will require less work. Raising the tax on their extra income by ten percentage points might well make that decision much easier.

What? Looking for less work? But, but [sputters, makes cartoon noises of astonishment] isn't the whole point of lower taxes that more people will work harder, if they get to keep more of their ill-gotten gains? (Of course, never mentioning how much of the wealth you create is siphoned off by your parasite employer before taxes even enter the "you're getting screwed" equation.) Are you saying, Ms. McArdle, that perhaps people would like not to work 80-hour weeks, or might like to spend time w/, well, anything or anyone but their fellow wage-slaves in their cubicles? That they might give up a little money for some time of their own? That perhaps this Marxist economic determinism you libertarians subscribe to might not be the perfect way to solve the problem of not enough wealth creation? Or what?

Yet another reason that I think my European friends, if they know what's good for them, will stop extolling the virtues of a cheaper single-payer system to us, and start telling us how awful it is, nothing we'd ever want to try.

Well, if they know what's good for them (even if they are European) maybe they will start telling us. Where's that Euro groundswell for letting HMOs & insurance cos. run health care in Europe? My ears are cocked.

[S]preading the risk has also made it difficult for strapped borrowers to obtain workouts...

Please, please, Megan, you're writing for The Atlantic, you're not some ninny who has a B. A. in English from Podunk State Teachers College & was lucky to get a job writing for the HR Dep't. Newsletter @ Fly-By-Night Mortgage, Escrow & Real Estate ("Your One Stop Shop For All Your Property Needs"). "Obtaining a workout" is done by dragging your ass to the fitness club. If you fucking mean "re-negotiating the terms of your mortgage, so you won't default," or "getting some debt relief," say so, damn it!! I'm a hell of a lot more worried about Ivy League graduates not being able to write jargon-free & idiocy-free English than whether or not they can answer set up questions (Megan's crappy "web log" doesn't link directly to the comment I intend it to, it's the third one down, from Mike Earl) on a test (Now that's a site where when you link to a comment, you link to a comment!!) from a Right Wing classicist whiner organization.

Last one, all praise to Jah Ras Tafari:

And having forced the reform down everyone else's throats, the government may be in a better public position, since now other civil servants will resent the special privilege.

You'd have to read the whole thing, but the "everyone else's throats" who are having pension reform forced down them are civil servants (specifically, railroad & utility workers, who were exempted from a previous "pension reform") so what special privilege are the "other civil servants" going to resent? And I will add that one reason (in the United Snakes, at least, can't speak for the French situation) public employees have good pension plans is that public sector pay is generally less than in the private sector, keeping public sector employees from doing the responsible, moral, libertarian thing of saving for the future, therefore a pension plan that acknowledges the disparity is necessary to attract non-marginal wage-slaves members of the labor force to the public sector. So there!!

Yesterday's Silly Questions & Megastats

Megastats for 18 September 2007:
# of posts: 9
First post: 0906 EDT
Eighth post: 1206 EDT
Ninth Post: 1946 EDT
Long lunch? Nyquil™?

Line Count:
Megan McA.: 86
Copied & Pasted: 155
Ratio: Approx. 2:1 Copying & Pasting

Videos Embedded: 1

Silly Questions: 2

Does anyone know why I can't reach Crooked Timber, Mark Kleiman, or my old site?

Can someone explain why eMusic doesn't seem to know that Tegan and Sara exist?

Mostly off topic ego-massage & blog-pimping, w/ a slight connection to all this:
Today is the birthday of Tegan & Sara. To see what other births, deaths & events occurred today (including G. Washington's Farewell Address, which appeared in the quiz mentioned in Fishbone's item immediately below) visit this pointless excuse for a "web log."

Miscellania: The "Comment of the Week" & "Gadget/Object of the week" remain unchanged. Get off the Nyquil™, girl!!

You're going to break your neck if you keep trying to do that

Oh yes, they're all pretty impressed with themselves over at Meg's Place:

A friend emails:

Students at many of the country's most prestigious colleges and universities are graduating with less knowledge of American history, government, and economics than they had as incoming freshmen, with Harvard University seniors scoring a "D+" average on a 60-question multiple-choice exam about civic literacy. According to a report released yesterday by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the average college senior at the 50 colleges and universities polled did not earn a passing grade.

The quiz is here. I scored 100%. Take the quiz yourself; if incoming Harvard students are really scoring in the sub-70% range, I'd be shocked. Although it is heavy on economics, so I might be biased.

You must be very proud, Megan, since you're only 15 years older than a typical Harvard senior. But then Just Another Greg chimes in with this gem:

I don't believe it either. When I completed the test, it gave the overall average score as 74.7% (since we're comparing, I got 95%). I find it hard to believe that Harvard kids are scoring lower than the general average for the test, unless all the smart folks here have jerked the average way up.

You know, Greg, just because you see your dog doing it, doesn't mean it's something you should try yourself. Especially in public.

Completely off topic

Dear Boston,

*jaws theme*

Love,
NYC

Condensed* Meggie-poo

If R&D executives can't buy new cars every year, no one will ever cure cancer. Furthermore, by test marketing unnecessary medical procedures we totally get bragging rights.

*- Condensed concept created by me and me alone and is absolutely not a cheap rip-off of a bit used by others. At all. In the least.

Impress Women the Sociopathic Way

False-flag troll, or earnest suitor with a collection of 1940's-vintage
German "novelty" lampshades? Commenting on McArdle's latest clarification of her clarification of her views on fertility promotion ("No, no, no, I never said no such thing nohow."), Mr. Nigel Witherspoon parts his hair and clears his throat:



Update: At dawn she slept:

Update MM: Sorry, I took a Nyquil and was out like a light by the time that was posted. Now removed.

Liquid, gel-cap or Jello? Ginger or watermelon-flavored?

Condescension Goes Both Ways

From one of today's items:

But color me skeptical.

That is why Megan is fortunate she didn't go the novel-writing route.

Then there's this:

Internet advertising is still sufficiently problematic that anyone who can charge for a web subscription will probably be better off than getting a lot of low-quality eyeballs from search engines. Low-quality, that is, in terms of ad rates--no apersions [sic] on my googling readers.

No, she wouldn't want to cast any aspersions on her Googling readers. It might force her to do some Googling herself. Doesn't virtually everyone using the internet use Google, or another search engine? Or do most of her readers not search anything?

And could we declare a moratorium on use of the word "problematic?" The definitions in my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate don't fit too well w/ the word's use above. Google (It Seems To Me) is doing alright, no matter how "problematic" Megan seems to feel internet advertising is.

On to the next example:

That's why classifieds and personal ads from people looking to meet other poor people tend to dominate the revenue stream of free weeklies.

Huh? Poor people? Before I decided to waste the rest of my life reading the internet, I used to waste my life reading free weeklies, including the personals (good for a laugh, & I was hoping to get some renewing, revitalizing schadenfreude from the sad, lonely, desperate losers looking for love). But poor? Besides the "college girls" hoping to pay their way through college w/ help from a "sugar daddy," & the "former Playboy/Penthouse models" looking for a free ride, the one constant in personal ads (here in Southern California, at least) besides "no smokers" is "financially secure." Not everyone is looking for a zillionaire, but it's not poor people looking for "other poor people."

And commenter Peter refutes (or at least disagrees w/) Megan's claim:

Free weeklies (allegedly) get the bulk of their advertising revenues from ads for escort services and massage parlors.

I am not an economist, nor an accountant, but It Seems To Me that Peter is correct. There has to be more money in the prostitution ads than the inexpensive personal ads in the backs of all those free weeklies. Note also that Peter can turn a phrase: "...(allegedly) get the bulk of their advertising revenues..." Compare that to Megan's "...tend to dominate the revenue stream..." I still have no idea why The Atlantic needs an "econoblogger," but if they must have one, can she type in English, rather than the sadly devalued language of the business world?

Well, she's not not making sense, exactly

Well, I am now officially feeling the pressure of being a contributor to this blog, thanks to Brad nudging me to get over to McArdle's site and pick some low-hanging fruit. Apparently I have inherited the role of shoddy economic analysis watchdog, based on the MA I earned from a third-rate department at a second-rate university some years back. I always knew that degree would take me places . . .

I have to say, I was a bit disappointed, since there's nothing in her recent posts that seems screamingly wrong to me - I thought her housing post made sense, even if it wasn't very interesting. Her post on German unemployment made the points you'd generally expect her to make, but I think she gets one thing wrong (emphasis mine):

Likewise, though Germany's OECD harmonised unemployment measure is lower than the official measure, it's still much higher than the level in the US: 6.4% vs. 4.6%. In a country with a population the size of Germany's, that's an extra 1.8 million people out of work. And if anything, that understates the problem, since America's social safety net is structured to inflate the stated size of the labor force (and thus the unemployment figure): for many benefits, you can only qualify if you are actively looking for work.

It seems to me that this is more or less backwards. US unemployment statistics are very particular in who shall and shall not be considered unemployed. For example, someone who has stopped looking for work after a long and fruitless search will not be counted in the unemployment statistics (see http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm; scroll down to the "Who is not in the labor force?" heading). But that doesn't mean he's not unemployed anymore - just that he's reached the conclusion that there just aren't any jobs for him. He's still there. He's still not working. But we just pretend not to see him. How removing certain types of unemployed people from the official definition of the labor force acts to inflate the stated size of said labor force is beyond me.

Also, as a native Detroiter, I bristled at this:

And while Eastern Germany is a problem, it's been almost 20 years since unification; at some point, you have to acknowlege that, whatever its historical problems, Eastern Germany is now part of Germany. America does not, after all, get to throw out Mississippi and Michigan because historical forces have caused them to underperform the rest of the country.

It's cute, sure, and could even be an arguable point if (as one of her commenters pointed out) Mississippi and Michigan contained one-fifth of the US population, or if the "historical problems" faced by Detroit were anywhere near as complicated as those faced by Eastern Germany. But then, I'm sure she's seen "8 Mile," so she's no doubt an expert on the history of Detroit as well.

Yeah, I know - it's a thin gruel today. Unfortunately, I have deadlines in the real world this week; but with any luck, I will soon be able to give Megan's postings all the attention they so richly deserve.