Either Larry Summers is trying out some open-mic material or he’s just a teensy bit lacking in self-awareness.
At a Center for American Progress event in Washington on Thursday he took shots at the public sector, suggesting that laws to prevent airline passengers from keeping their BlackBerrys on during takeoff and landing is an example of federal overreach.
“I can tell you that my wealthy friends who own airplanes — they don’t turn their BlackBerrys off,” said the former economic adviser to President Obama, who recently abandoned a bid for chair of the Federal Reserve following accusations from the left of being overly anti-regulation. “I can tell you that the Secret Service does not go running around checking people’s BlackBerrys on Air Force One.”
The punchline: “If we want to renew faith in the public sector we’ve got to be open to fixing things like that.”
There are parts of the Federal Administration Authority’s “everything must be switched off” rule that could be relaxed and, indeed, earlier this fall an advisory panel completed recommendations to ease many of the restrictions (reading e-books, listening to podcasts, and watching videos are now officially OK). But the ban on texting and emailing, or making phone calls during takeoff or landing, remains in place because it turns out that, like many of the regulations we plebeians must follow, there are reasons those rules are in place.
As aviation expert and New York Times columnist Christine Negroni wrote recently, there actually have been cases of pilots reporting electronic devices interfering with flight systems, and to date there is no scientific study by NASA dismissing concerns about the use of electronic devices on airplanes. Hamza Bendemra made a similar point in Life Hacker this summer in an article titled “Why You Still Have To Switch Your Mobile Phone Off On Planes.” The takeaway point: It’s not worth the risk.
And another thing: Who still uses BlackBerrys?
Correction: An earlier version of this story stated Summers abandoned a bid for secretary of the Treasury. He abandoned a bid for chair of the Federal Reserve.
What We're Following See More »
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."
President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"