SIlly New Republic Article #1

Michelle Cottle writes about the Redemption of Barney Frank. Now, what would one expect to find needs redeeming?

Could it be, er, his long relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Maybe with some explanation as to how he has learned from his errors, what he did wasn't so bad, he is working to fix things, etc???

Bzzt. No. Cottle claims that his error was his affair with a male prostitute. Cottle wont even mention his affair with a page and with an executive in Fannie Mae. Let alone Frank possibly helping contribute towards the current financial meltdown.

Whether or not you think Frank had much responsibility for the Fannie / Freddie mess, it should be addressed in an article about Barney Frank! It would be a perfect place for the leftist New Republic to address the charges against Frank, and present their case that he had little or no culpability. Sadly, New Republic is intellectualy incapable of even mentioning the history, let alone making a case for Frank's innocence.

As you can see from the comments on the New Republic site, I'm far from the first to notice this asinine article. I'm trying to understand (and balance my center-right tendencies) with leftish thinking, and thought that New Republic was one of their more capable outlets. But this is just stupid. Why should I believe any future article by them?

Minnesota Senate Recount

Minnesota NPR has many examples of challenged ballots. The first thing that should be obvious is that neither side gives a crap about the will of the voters. Just win baby.

For example, on the left is a pretty clear vote for Coleman, but the voter may have left an identifying mark (blacked out) which is invalid by Minnesota law. Franken is challenging.

Lawyers must be running this, cause they are cheerfully arguing both sides on separate ballot. For example, Franken is arguing against the ballot on the left, while arguing for the ballot in the right. (Coleman's side isn't any better from what I can see)





















If this gets really tight, do we really want somebody who voted for "Lizard People" for President to determine whether or not the Democrats obtain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?


Some voters who flippantly voted are now showing regret.


dailykos has a good analysis of a few of the "suspicious" vote changes, showing that at least two of the three "oops, we mis-transcribed" corrections are very reasonable, and the third one is reasonable.

A Dartmouth Study suggests that undervotes will favor Franken.

Surely there will be tons of suits and ranting over a few hundred votes here and there and the "intent" of some undercount ballot. But nobody will mention that a huge 15% of the voters chose an independent, Dean Barkley. Shouldn't we wonder about their intent? How would their votes have gone with no Barkley? This is an argument for some sort of "instant-runoff" system. In Oregon, the independent got 5%, and the winner only 49%, another candidate for an instant runoff. Especially since the independent very probably took more votes from the loser than the winner. Or at least a normal runoff as is happening in Georgia.

California Bond Propositions

I noticed something about most of the 2008 California Bond Propositions.

Prop 1A: "Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion..."

Prop 3: "Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds..."

Prop 6: "Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated..."

Prop 12: "This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000)..."


Notice anything? Like they try to deceive you about the cost? Just like that nice house on the corner listed for $999,000. Geez, I'm sure glad it's not a million, that would be out of our price range! Of course, just like a mortgage, the true cost of the bonds is roughly double the up-front cost.

For the record, Props 5 and 10 did not try this shenanigans.

Silly New York Times Editorial #2

The prize goes to Frank Rich for It Still Felt Good the Morning After.

For eight years, we’ve been told by those in power that we are small, bigoted and stupid — easily divided and easily frightened. This was the toxic catechism of Bush-Rove politics. It was the soiled banner picked up by the sad McCain campaign

Bush, Rove and McCain think we are bigoted and stupid? Or was it Democrat John Murtha? Or Democrat Al Sharpton? Rich cites zero examples of Republicans calling us stupid bigots.

If I had a dollar for every Democrat who told me there was no way that Americans would ever ... elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama president, I could almost start to recoup my 401(k).

Rich cites democrats thinking us bigoted, not Bush or Rove.

and it was often abetted by an amen corner in the dominant news media.

Agreed here. But, ever since no WMDs were found in Iraq in 2004, the dominant news media is hardly a mouthpiece for Bush / Rove. Anybody claiming otherwise is delusional.

While there are still bigots in America, they are in unambiguous retreat.

And which press enabler of Bush / Rove said this? Frank Rich himself!

It's a remarkable editorial to complain about Bush / Rove thinking Americans are bigots, then documenting only democrats and the press calling them so. Topping it off by the author himself calling Americans bigots.

To their great credit, on an historic election day the American people showed that they are not racist bigots. Rich provides good statistics proving this. One final example: my dad, who grew up in the 20s and 30s in a small town in a former slave state, voted for Obama.

A Followup on Media Coverage of the Campaign

In an earlier post, I used data from the Pew Research Center to show that Fox News was surprisingly "Fair and Balanced" in their coverage of McCain and Obama, and MSNBC wasn't. Here is a followup with the numbers from some of the other media outlets. Note that in some cases the numbers come from me squinting at the charts, so they may be slightly off. What I call "Pro and Anti", Pew called favorable and negative. Pew's "Neutral" was ignored. Pro and Anti are shorter and fit in the chart better. :-)

The definition of "Bias towards Obama" is straightforward:

(Pro Obama% / Anti Obama%) / (Pro McCain% / Anti McCain%)

A value of 1 shows no bias, values significantly greater than 1 show a bias towards Obama, and values less than 1 show a pro-McCain bias. For the VP Debate, substitute Biden and Palin for Obama and McCain. The CBS "anti" numbers were not given in the data, but were said to be "similar to overall", so I put in the overall numbers.

Conclusion: other then Fox, the media was seriously "in the tank" for Obama. Which is why the Saturday Night Live spoofs ring so true.

Democracy in America #1

I've been slowly working my way through Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. It's written in the old fashioned style, with long, complex and intelligent sentences. It's the writing that sounds so wonderful in short doses when you read some letter of Jefferson or Lincoln. But, in large doses, it's wearying. I can only manage maybe 10 pages a day. Full text is available here.

Still, it's well worth it. Much of what he wrote nearly 200 years ago still holds true. Here's some of my favorites so far.

Book I Chapter 8

A proposition must be plain, to be adopted by the understanding of a people. A false notion which is clear and precise will always have more power in the world than a true principle which is obscure or involved. Thus it happens that parties, which are like small communities in the heart of the nation, invariably adopt some principle or name as a symbol, which very inadequately represents the end they have in view and the means that they employ, but without which they could neither act nor exist. The governments that are founded upon a single principle or a single feeling which is easily defined are perhaps not the best, but they are unquestionably the strongest and the most durable in the world.

Book I Chapter 13, a quote from Hamilton

It may perhaps be said, that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones.

Book I Chapter 13, complaining about the low quality of public officials (sound familiar?)

The pursuit of wealth generally diverts men of great talents and strong passions from the pursuit of power; and it frequently happens that a man does not undertake to direct the fortunes of the state until he has shown himself incompetent to conduct his own. The vast number of very ordinary men who occupy public stations is quite as attributable to these causes as to the bad choice of democracy.

Book I Chapter 14

Nothing is more embarrassing in the ordinary intercourse of life than this irritable patriotism of the Americans.

Book I Chapter 17

Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.

Silly New York Times Editorial #1

Even though I opposed (and voted against) California's Prop 8, and believe it to be at least somewhat unconstitutional (see an earlier blog), that doesn't mean that all arguments against it are valid.  Like the ones in the Nov 6 2008 NY Times editorial, Equality's Winding Path.

"The measure was designed to overturn May's State Supreme Court decision ... The firmly grounded ruling..."

The ruling was 4 to 3.  How can such a narrow ruling be firmly grounded?  Maybe if the ruling were unanimous or 6 to 1.  But, by definition, a 4 to 3 ruling isn't.  I'm sure the NY Times liked the ruling, but instead of simply admitting their position, their editorial writers pretended some legal knowledge.  They are laymen who don't seem to understand California law.

"... danger of allowing the ballot box to be used to take away people's fundamental rights."

One of the people of California's basic rights is to amend their Constitution via the Initiative.  And, for better or worse, this is a "meta-right" (or, as a friend joked, "deep magic").  I think it's strange that it only takes a 50.1% vote, but that's the way it is.

Why California Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional

"It is ... a small college ... yet, there are those who love it."

I'm not a lawyer, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.  But one advantage of being a layman is that I only know a couple of legal principles.  One applies to Prop 8, at least so far as existing gay marriages.  They must be allowed to stand.  Whether this argument extends to future events, I have no clue.  My extremely brief brief follows. 

Whereas, marriage is a contract, and, whereas, Prop 8 is an attempt by the State of California to impair said contract, it is unconstitutional by Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, (1819).

All I ask for is 10% of the legal fees in all these lawsuits.  :-)

Joni Mitchell Turns 65

Here's a nice tribute.

Yes, this blog is named after her lyrics.

Is Fox News "Fair and Balanced"

According to some data from the Pew Research Center, maybe they are.

If you look at the center chart "Tone of Coverage", (shown below)

you can see that Fox News treated McCain and Obama equally: 40% of stories for both were "unfavorable", 40% for both were "neutral" and 20% for both were "favorable".  If we define the rooting for factor", RFF, as favorable/unfavorable, Both Obama and McCain had a RFF of 20%/40% = 0.5.  If we define "Obama Bias" as RFF(Obama)/RFF(McCain), they get a bias of 1.0, which is dead-even fair.  Fox treated each equally.

This suggests that the other main stream media outlets, which fall to the left of Fox, are biased.  The chart shows this.  MSNBC is particularly non-objective.  Their RFF(Obama) is about 40/13 (or 3), the RFF(McCain) is about 10/70, yielding a "Obama Bias"of 21.

Pew collected similar data on NBC.  They do better than MSNBC, but that ain't saying much.   Their RFF(Obama) is 2.0, RFF(McCain) is 1/3, for a "Obama Bias" of 6.

I'm surprised that Fox was "Fair and Balanced".  But the real conclusion of this data is that the other media outlets are truly biased, far more than I was expecting.  Pew speculates that not all of this effect is bias, some is a "bandwagon" or "horserace" effect favoring the leader in the polls, but I don't see that as much of an improvement either.  Maybe they can read journalist's minds and intentions.  I prefer to stick with the objective facts.

So What's an Example of Hyperbole?

For the past several years, New York Times editorials (and others form the Left) have decried various unsavory Bush actions that I agree are suspect on civil liberties. Fine, many deserve to be brought to light and discussed. But it seems like every one is an "unprecedented and outrageous assault" on our civil liberties. Maybe they forgot about FDR, one of our better presidents, who sent hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans to internment camps. Lincoln defied a Writ of Habeus Corpus. This doesn't justify all of Bush's actions, but one must have some historical perspective.

Or comments to the effect that the Iraq War is the greatest foreign policy disaster of all time. The War was mismanaged, but, so far, the enemy hasn't sailed up the Potomac to burn the White House. That was a poorly run war.

Introduction

Many political editorials, talk shows, discussion lists and columns feature far too much screaming, shouting, and hyperbole, with little content. The authors, usually from the far right or left, preach to the converted and their arguments, as a result, are weak and backed by political faith and not facts. Their opponents cannot possibly have a rational reason to oppose them, so must be evil, stupid or venal.

This blog will attempt to be different. My rules for myself, which are sure to be broken, are

1. No ranting. Opposing points of view are assumed to have a brain and intellectual honesty. (Warning - I do enjoy FireJoeMorgan.com, so expect some attitude once on a while.)
2. Where possible, facts. Call it "sabremetrics for politics".
3. No hyperbole.

You may have noticed that this intro broke the rules some. Sorry :-)

Not sure how much I'll stick to politics or how much to wander into other topics.  We'll see.