If you haven't been following the World Series, the Texas Rangers hosted game 4 on Sunday night down 2-1 to the underdog San Francisco Giants, with the weakest pitcher in their order starting on the mound. The pressure was on. So what could the folks running the franchise possibly do to make things more tense for their players? Well, watch and find out:
Never mind the fact that the sight of the World's Biggest American Flag covering the field, with a slightly smaller flag of Texas in behind it, was a touch overly-patriotic, even for the U.S. Did the team really think that it was a good idea to let the most divisive President in modern American history drive all over the field in a golf cart, with his father in tow?
Yes, yes, George W. Bush used to co-own the Rangers, so he has ties with the team. And Texas is the Bush family's beloved adopted home state. But making such a big show of his presence automatically politicized the festivities. Think of what the Fox News crowd would say if the Giants invited Barack Obama to throw out the first pitch should the series return to their hometown. Now think of how the players felt coming out after such a bizarre scene.
Oh yes, the Rangers dropped the game 4-0, and are now one game away from elimination. Let's hope for their sake that Ross Perot isn't scheduled to make an appearance tomorrow.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The dysfunctionality of Washington, summed up in two sentences
As the AP reported on Sunday, one of the big-ticket issues that post-midterm Washington will have to deal with is the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, which is set to happen at the start of 2011 if no action is taken. For both political parties, this is a problem -- Barack Obama famously promised that he would not increase taxes on households making less than $250,000 in annual income, while Republicans insist that all cuts should be made permanent.
This whole debate is really a bit nonsensical, as The Economist reported in September:
An important issue, then. So how do Washington insiders see this playing out? From the AP article:
This is why there is so much anger directed at Washington. It may often be misguided, hyperbolic, and cruel, but the anger is there for a reason.
But it won't be long before everyone will be forced to step up and take action. From The Economist:
But Democrats have to shoulder a fair share of the blame for this fiscal mess. Obama's signature health-care plan was such a disappointment on so many fronts, and it will eventually become a serious financial burden, as the article goes on to explain:
This whole debate is really a bit nonsensical, as The Economist reported in September:
The irony in this drama is that the money at stake is, in the larger scheme, trivial. Raising taxes on the top 2% of households, as Mr Obama proposes, would bring in $34 billion next year: enough to cover nine days’ worth of the deficit. Indeed, the problem with the tax debate is not that Democrats and Republicans disagree, but that they mostly agree. Democrats think 98% of Americans should not pay higher taxes; the Republicans say 100% should not.Having said that, there is a certain symbolic weight to all of this. A full Republican victory would set a precedent of keeping taxes low, thereby forcing the government to try and cut back spending in order to tame the deficit (more on that in a minute). A compromise deal which allowed for taxes to go back up for, say, households making more than $500,000/year, might make future taxation policy more flexible.
An important issue, then. So how do Washington insiders see this playing out? From the AP article:
"The most likely outcome is a one-year extension of everything," said Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf. "The second most likely outcome is nothing happens."So either the issue is put off, or no deal is reached. This is the reality of politics in Washington, and it's quite sad. At a time when strong leadership of any kind - Democrat, Republican, whatever - is so sorely needed, Congress and the President have failed in successfully and comprehensively tackling any important issue of the day, and seem intent on going on in this way.
This is why there is so much anger directed at Washington. It may often be misguided, hyperbolic, and cruel, but the anger is there for a reason.
But it won't be long before everyone will be forced to step up and take action. From The Economist:
Around 2015, spending will start a multi-year climb. To attribute that entirely to Mr Obama would be disingenuous. His health-care plan does contribute to it, but rising interest on the national debt and built-in health and demographic pressures are more important.In other words, despite Republican promises to roll back spending to pre-recession levels, the deficit will almost surely rise because of issues that are beyond their control. If they dig their heels in on tax cuts now, they are ensuring that future measures to cut back the deficit will have to be much more extreme.
But Democrats have to shoulder a fair share of the blame for this fiscal mess. Obama's signature health-care plan was such a disappointment on so many fronts, and it will eventually become a serious financial burden, as the article goes on to explain:
Mr Obama took an American approach to health care, dismissing both a Canadian single-payer option and a broad federal safety-net plan to win support. One result is that 7% of Americans will remain uninsured, still the third-highest percentage in the OECD, after Mexico and Turkey. “This is way to the right of what [Richard] Nixon proposed,” says Jonathan Gruber, a health expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. American resistance to Canadian-style rationing is also why the reform provides so few serious cost controls. A recent study by the actuary of the federal agency that oversees Medicare and Medicaid found that the reform will do little to slow the growth in public and private health spending.So much political capital spent on a bill that does not achieve any of its stated goals, and a deficit that will continue to climb even if the economy improves (this expectation is built into the projections). There will come a time when Washington will no longer be able to kick its problems down the road.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Sarah Palin, starring as Sarah Palin
The Sarah Palin most of us see is a carefully-crafted character. Her and her handlers work hard to present us with a person that mainstream America can identify with. There have been missteps, but the fact that she is still one of the strongest voices coming from the right shows that their efforts are largely paying off.
The Sarah Palin most of us don't see is the one that shows up at Tea Party rallies and speaks directly to an audience that already identifies with her. It is at such rallies that the "God & guns" Sarah Palin can speak without fear.
Yet the story is not quite so simple. Ms. Palin is not officially a Tea Partier. In fact, if she tried to label herself as a Tea Partier, she would likely receive a cold reception. The Tea Party people make a big deal about their grassroots origins, and Ms. Palin was already a careerist politician when the movement began.
On Saturday, Ms. Palin dropped by a Tea Party Express rally in Wheeling, West Virginia. The only media coverage on the scene were Tea Party folks themselves. As such, we get to see Ms. Palin in action on friendly turf, but not necessarily on home turf. It is very worthwhile to watch this footage to see how she operates under these intriguing circumstances:
Here we see both Ms. Palin's gifts and shortcomings as a speaker. At first she sounds extremely awkward and cloying. But once she gets going, her performance is rather riveting. Most of what she says is the usual empty rhetoric about "putting our government back on the side of We the People". But she is a master improviser, in contrast to Barack Obama. While the President can deliver an inspirational speech to a big crowd, Ms. Palin can capture a smaller audience by speaking at their level. Note how she starts rambling on about coal mining after someone in the audience shouts something to her. She changes tack to focus on a topic of her audience's choosing without missing a beat.
Ms. Palin is also doing something else here. Note how she places herself at a distance from the Tea Party movement. She refers to them constantly in the second person. She casts them as the grassroots revolutionaries that they believe themselves to be without ever placing herself among their ranks. This was a point made a month ago in a Washington Post blog post:
(Note -- you might have noticed that very odd commercial at the end of that video clip. Yeah, I don't know what to make of it either.)
The Sarah Palin most of us don't see is the one that shows up at Tea Party rallies and speaks directly to an audience that already identifies with her. It is at such rallies that the "God & guns" Sarah Palin can speak without fear.
Yet the story is not quite so simple. Ms. Palin is not officially a Tea Partier. In fact, if she tried to label herself as a Tea Partier, she would likely receive a cold reception. The Tea Party people make a big deal about their grassroots origins, and Ms. Palin was already a careerist politician when the movement began.
On Saturday, Ms. Palin dropped by a Tea Party Express rally in Wheeling, West Virginia. The only media coverage on the scene were Tea Party folks themselves. As such, we get to see Ms. Palin in action on friendly turf, but not necessarily on home turf. It is very worthwhile to watch this footage to see how she operates under these intriguing circumstances:
Here we see both Ms. Palin's gifts and shortcomings as a speaker. At first she sounds extremely awkward and cloying. But once she gets going, her performance is rather riveting. Most of what she says is the usual empty rhetoric about "putting our government back on the side of We the People". But she is a master improviser, in contrast to Barack Obama. While the President can deliver an inspirational speech to a big crowd, Ms. Palin can capture a smaller audience by speaking at their level. Note how she starts rambling on about coal mining after someone in the audience shouts something to her. She changes tack to focus on a topic of her audience's choosing without missing a beat.
Ms. Palin is also doing something else here. Note how she places herself at a distance from the Tea Party movement. She refers to them constantly in the second person. She casts them as the grassroots revolutionaries that they believe themselves to be without ever placing herself among their ranks. This was a point made a month ago in a Washington Post blog post:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) appears to be making a purposeful play in recent days to be the face of the "tea party" movement, a strategy that suggests what sort of candidacy she would run if she enters the 2012 presidential contest.Indeed, Ms. Palin seems to be continuing on this course. But at some point she's going to have to steer the ship slightly. She is going to have to make her political ambitions clearer. We will have to see what happens to her relationship with the Tea Party movement at that point.
Palin has largely demurred when asked about her 2012 ambitions (or lack thereof) -- choosing to steer the conversation to the importance of electing Republicans this fall.
But, in a speech to the Iowa Republican Party on Friday night and then again in a Web video released by her political action committee today, she seems to be sending clear hints about a national bid -- and laying claim to the mantle of the tea party candidate if she does run.
In the video -- titled "Tea Party" -- Palin praises the movement as a "ground-up call to action that is forcing both parties to change the way they are doing business," adding, "It is so inspiring to see real people, not politicos, not inside-the-Beltway professionals, come out and stand up and speak out for commonsense conservative principles."
(Note -- you might have noticed that very odd commercial at the end of that video clip. Yeah, I don't know what to make of it either.)
Paul Krugman throws a fit, prophesizes doom
Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in Friday's New York Times quickly spread through the Web and attracted much derision from right-wing pundits. The piece is essentially a long, manic rant about the terrible world to come if the Republicans take control of the House (and possibly the Senate), nicely sprinkled with apocalyptic prophecies such as the following:
Why are Democrats making this argument? Well, even though the Tea Party crowd brands Obama as a radical leftist, the truth is that the President has been a huge disappointment for the liberal left. He has failed to enact credible policy changes in any area that matters to the voters that put him in office. The health care bill is weak, the climate change bill died in the Senate, and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has yet to be repealed.
This is why Obama went on The Daily Show and made the now infamous remark, "Yes we can, but..." -- the point being that he is still supposedly committed to great change, but that more time is needed.
Mr. Krugman makes a similar appeal with the following remarks:
Mr. Krugman also blunders badly with the following argument:
Don't get me wrong here -- a Republican House will make things very difficult in Washington. The party has yet to indicate how it is going to try and enact legislation with a Democratic President holding the veto pen. The economic situation is still dire. There are many reasons to "be very afraid" -- but the Democrats have had their chance to assuage our fears. And they haven't.
This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.Also:
So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.The Economist, which recently published a decidedly balanced column about America's Tea Party movement, jumped all over Krugman's rant, making the following observation:
Mr Krugman offers no reason to believe that if Republicans fail to capture the House, Democrats will deliver the policies he thinks we need to avoid "years of political chaos and economic weakness". It's a little sad, isn't it, when even our most eminent public intellectuals waste so much of their time, and ours, on baseless partisan freakouts?Ouch. But Democrats and their supporters, facing up to the reality of what seems likely to be a disastrous election night next Tuesday, have started making a rather crude argument -- yes, they've made mistakes, they say, but if the Republicans win they'll be even worse.
Why are Democrats making this argument? Well, even though the Tea Party crowd brands Obama as a radical leftist, the truth is that the President has been a huge disappointment for the liberal left. He has failed to enact credible policy changes in any area that matters to the voters that put him in office. The health care bill is weak, the climate change bill died in the Senate, and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has yet to be repealed.
This is why Obama went on The Daily Show and made the now infamous remark, "Yes we can, but..." -- the point being that he is still supposedly committed to great change, but that more time is needed.
Mr. Krugman makes a similar appeal with the following remarks:
Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.But here's the problem -- the Democrats have had two years of utter domination in Washington in which they could have enacted the agenda Mr. Krugman is demanding. And the fact is that they have failed miserably. When you're in office and you fail so badly, you don't really deserve to stay in office, do you? The "we're less worse" argument doesn't wash -- at the very least, it's not the sort of message that's going to get the base to go out and vote.
But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.
Mr. Krugman also blunders badly with the following argument:
We might add that should any Republicans in Congress find themselves considering the possibility of acting in a statesmanlike, bipartisan manner, they’ll surely reconsider after looking over their shoulder at the Tea Party-types, who will jump on them if they show any signs of being reasonable. The role of the Tea Party is one reason smart observers expect another government shutdown, probably as early as next spring.The Tea Party movement certainly has its mean, hateful side. It also has terribly unrealistic expectations. But are we to automatically assume that every Republican elected to office is going to behave boorishly in office? Is it too much to assume that at least some of them will act in a "statesmanlike" manner, or at least as statesmanlike as any other member of Congress? Every politician who goes to Washington has to make compromises. Why should we automatically assume that the Tea Party candidates will be no different?
Don't get me wrong here -- a Republican House will make things very difficult in Washington. The party has yet to indicate how it is going to try and enact legislation with a Democratic President holding the veto pen. The economic situation is still dire. There are many reasons to "be very afraid" -- but the Democrats have had their chance to assuage our fears. And they haven't.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Microsoft gets desperate with Windows Phone 7
Remember when Microsoft was that evil company that made lousy software and was taking over the world? Well, "evil" might have been a bit of a stretch, and the company seems to have lost the world domination battle to Apple, at least in the consumer market. As for that lousy software? Well, Microsoft is now releasing a completely new version of their mobile phone OS, called, somewhat confusingly, Windows Phone 7.
Microsoft is clearly trying really, really hard to make its product stand out in the crowded mobile market. But is that really a good thing? Businessweek made the following remarks about the new OS:
Businessweek goes on to describe more about WP7. See if you can understand this:
Of course Microsoft has all kinds of promo videos for their new product. Here we see the "live tiles" in action:
Not very impressive. Microsoft seems to think that we all really love context menus. We don't. Moreover, they seem thrilled by the fact that you can "personalize" your phone by changing the colour of the tiles. They seem to forget that iPhones let you put up your own wallpaper images.
Here you'll find that The Christian Science Monitor has a nice round-up of several WP7 reviews, which are decidedly mixed. One issue in particular stood out for me:
Microsoft is clearly trying really, really hard to make its product stand out in the crowded mobile market. But is that really a good thing? Businessweek made the following remarks about the new OS:
Windows Phone 7 is nothing to be embarrassed about. Microsoft deserves credit for doing some things that go against the prevailing smartphone norm. Instead of a screen covered with little app icons, users get a set of colorful rectangles that Microsoft calls "live tiles."But see, here's the thing -- people know and understand a screen covered with little app icons. Why would iPhones be so popular in the first place if they didn't? Why else would other smart phone operating systems fill their screens with little app icons? I know what an app icon is. I have no idea what a "live tile" is.
Businessweek goes on to describe more about WP7. See if you can understand this:
There are six hubs: People, Pictures, Music & Videos, Marketplace, Microsoft Office, and Games. The People hub, for instance, aggregates your address book, Facebook friend list, and updates in one place. Music & Videos is based on Microsoft's Zune software, which is easy to use and syncs with content on your computer. Pictures is a home for your snapshots and a portal to others' Facebook photos. The hubs are easy to grasp, but not nearly comprehensive enough. Facebook is well integrated into the People hub—but Twitter isn't. The Pictures hub is great if you use Facebook or Windows Live. Prefer Flickr? It's a hassle. You can customize the home screen with your own tiles or add apps, but you'll find yourself scrolling through tiresome lists.Somehow I doubt that the hubs will be "easy to grasp" for the average user, at least compared to those silly old app icons that everyone else uses.
Of course Microsoft has all kinds of promo videos for their new product. Here we see the "live tiles" in action:
Not very impressive. Microsoft seems to think that we all really love context menus. We don't. Moreover, they seem thrilled by the fact that you can "personalize" your phone by changing the colour of the tiles. They seem to forget that iPhones let you put up your own wallpaper images.
Here you'll find that The Christian Science Monitor has a nice round-up of several WP7 reviews, which are decidedly mixed. One issue in particular stood out for me:
David Pogue of the New York Times also finds plenty missing from the Windows Phone 7 OS. "Like the iPhone," Pogue writes, "the Web browser doesn’t play Flash videos on the Web — but it also won’t play the HTML5 videos that the iPhone plays, or even videos in Microsoft’s own Silverlight format. So, no YouTube, no Hulu, no online news videos."Sorry, Microsoft. Weak video support means you've lost most of your market. Maybe you can do better with Windows Phone 8.
Sharron Angle, doing her best to look crazy before election night
This small item was released by the AP earlier today:
Ms. Angle has become rather infamous for avoiding the media, declining interviews, and generally keeping herself insulated behind her handlers. In this clip a news anchor for a Reno NBC affiliate makes an on-air plea for Ms. Angle to drop by for a chat just days after she won the Republican nomination:
And here we see her refusing to answer questions from reporters at a press conference in Las Vegas:
So here's the thing -- Ms. Angle doesn't like speaking to the media. This is surely common knowledge to Nevada voters. So a lot of the support she may have lost over this issue has already been locked into the polls. She's made her choices, and here we are.
But when you're in a tight race, do you really want to come out looking so crazy the weekend before the election? The footage of her fleeing from reporters at the airport is bad enough. But you could argue, perhaps, that she was in a situation that she could only partially control. But then she comes and says that journalists from two news affiliates aren't invited to her election night party? She resorts to the behaviour of an eight-year-old?
This is just the kind of wacky story that can grow and fester as pre-election tension peaks. Not exactly a smart move, Ms. Angle.
Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle's campaign is banning two Las Vegas television stations from covering the candidate's election night party as punishment for asking questions without permission.The local CBS affiliate actually ran a story about Ms. Angle trying to dodge them at the airport, which you can take a look at below:
Journalists from the local CBS and NBC news affiliates surprised Angle at McCarran International Airport on Friday to ask her questions about national security and unemployment. Video footage shows the GOP Senate candidate telling the reporters she will answer questions once she is elected.
Ms. Angle has become rather infamous for avoiding the media, declining interviews, and generally keeping herself insulated behind her handlers. In this clip a news anchor for a Reno NBC affiliate makes an on-air plea for Ms. Angle to drop by for a chat just days after she won the Republican nomination:
And here we see her refusing to answer questions from reporters at a press conference in Las Vegas:
So here's the thing -- Ms. Angle doesn't like speaking to the media. This is surely common knowledge to Nevada voters. So a lot of the support she may have lost over this issue has already been locked into the polls. She's made her choices, and here we are.
But when you're in a tight race, do you really want to come out looking so crazy the weekend before the election? The footage of her fleeing from reporters at the airport is bad enough. But you could argue, perhaps, that she was in a situation that she could only partially control. But then she comes and says that journalists from two news affiliates aren't invited to her election night party? She resorts to the behaviour of an eight-year-old?
This is just the kind of wacky story that can grow and fester as pre-election tension peaks. Not exactly a smart move, Ms. Angle.
U.S. economic growth still feeble -- a look at the numbers
As reported here, the U.S. Commerce Department has stated that third-quarter economic growth in the country was higher than expected, but still not that high:
So let's compare GDP growth rates from this recession as compared to the dire recession of the early 1980s. According to Wikipedia's handy list of recessions in the U.S., the "Great Recession" lasted from Dec. 2007 to July 2009 -- a total of 18 months. The second and more drastic of the early 80s recessions lasted from July 1981 to Nov. 1982 -- that would be 16 months, though keep in mind that the economy was coming off of a short recession that occurred in 1980.
So here we are in October (nearly November) 2010 -- a full 15 months after the official end of recession. So let's plot a graph of the U.S. GDP growth rate that takes us back four years to November 2005, to a time when the economy was supposedly growing quite nicely:
Of course we only get data as it comes in by quarter, so the first figure here shows up on January 2006 (which represents the fourth quarter of 2005).
Here we see that GDP spiked to near 6% growth in early 2006. For much of the rest of the period, it hovered between 1% and 3%, dipping down to 0% in late 2006. We then see the big dip that occurred during the recession, followed by a short spike in growth at the start of 2010 (i.e. Q4 2009). As of now, the U.S. is back into a slow growth phase (note that today's 2% rate does not appear on the chart).
Now, let's look at a similar time frame for the early 80s recession. 15 months after the recession ended would take us to February 1984. Going back five years to February 1979, we get a GDP growth rate chart that look as follows:
Here the situation is much more erratic, due in part to the short 1980 recession I mentioned earlier. Growth prior to that short recession hovered between 0% and around 3%. We then get a sudden dip in growth, followed by a huge spike up to around 7-8%. The second recession hits, but then we get a tremendous rebound -- throughout most of 1983 GDP growth was approaching the 10% mark.
What does this tell us? Well, first off, the current recovery is not going quite as well as previously expected. This is something that we already know. Yet it is worth examining exactly how sluggish our recovery is at the moment. The 1983 rebound saw GDP growth approach double digits. So far, the post-Great Recession growth rate has not gone beyond 5.7% (see here). Since then, of course, the recovery has stalled, and GDP growth has dipped down to the 2% range.
But there is something else worth noting here. We tend to talk about the supposed boom years of the mid 00s that preceded the last recession. But was GDP growth all that great? If you look at both graphs, you'll see that growth in 2006 and 2007 sometimes dipped down quite sharply, and that the Q1 2006 figure is the only one that is significantly high. Growth in the years leading up to the 1980 recession was not terribly different (note that the graphs use different scales, so that the 80s figures look less impressive at first glance).
In fact, let's take a look at growth through the second half of the 1970s. The brutal "stagflation" recession of the mid-70s officially ended in March 1975. So let's plot GDP growth from that point to February 1979:
Again, the situation is rather erratic. But note how high the GDP growth rate rose in the years following the mid-70s recession. Q4 1977 stands at 0%. And there was a dip down to the 2-3% range in the second half of 1976. Other than that, however, growth was rather significant, ranging from 5-10%, and soaring past the 15% mark in Q2 1978.
What does this tell us? Well, despite our current impressions, growth in the mid-00s was not exactly record-breaking (you can check out the entire decade for yourself if you wish, but the story is generally the same in the years following the 2001 recession). Considering how much of that growth was built on a house of cards that stood atop a crumbling housing market, those figures should be even more sobering. What exactly were we all doing in the 00s? More importantly, where will future growth come from, given that pre-recession economic growth was so unimpressive?
Of course GDP is only one economic indicator. I'm not trying to say that things were "better" in the 70s than they are now -- by most measures that is not true. But this does give us a good idea of the problems that lie ahead in terms of achieving true economic recovery.
The economy grew slightly faster last summer as Americans spent a little more freely. Yet it remains too weak to reduce high unemployment just as Democrats face deep losses in Tuesday's elections.A great place to go to get a better perspective on this is the website Trading Economics, which allows you to chart all sorts of economic indicators from around the world.
The Commerce Department said Friday that the economy expanded at a 2 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter. It marked an improvement from the feeble 1.7 percent growth in the April-June quarter.
Consumers helped boost last quarter's economic growth with 2.6 percent growth in spending. That was better than the second quarter's 2.2 percent growth rate and marked the biggest quarterly increase since a 4.1 percent gain at the end of 2006 before the recession hit.
So let's compare GDP growth rates from this recession as compared to the dire recession of the early 1980s. According to Wikipedia's handy list of recessions in the U.S., the "Great Recession" lasted from Dec. 2007 to July 2009 -- a total of 18 months. The second and more drastic of the early 80s recessions lasted from July 1981 to Nov. 1982 -- that would be 16 months, though keep in mind that the economy was coming off of a short recession that occurred in 1980.
So here we are in October (nearly November) 2010 -- a full 15 months after the official end of recession. So let's plot a graph of the U.S. GDP growth rate that takes us back four years to November 2005, to a time when the economy was supposedly growing quite nicely:
Of course we only get data as it comes in by quarter, so the first figure here shows up on January 2006 (which represents the fourth quarter of 2005).
Here we see that GDP spiked to near 6% growth in early 2006. For much of the rest of the period, it hovered between 1% and 3%, dipping down to 0% in late 2006. We then see the big dip that occurred during the recession, followed by a short spike in growth at the start of 2010 (i.e. Q4 2009). As of now, the U.S. is back into a slow growth phase (note that today's 2% rate does not appear on the chart).
Now, let's look at a similar time frame for the early 80s recession. 15 months after the recession ended would take us to February 1984. Going back five years to February 1979, we get a GDP growth rate chart that look as follows:
Here the situation is much more erratic, due in part to the short 1980 recession I mentioned earlier. Growth prior to that short recession hovered between 0% and around 3%. We then get a sudden dip in growth, followed by a huge spike up to around 7-8%. The second recession hits, but then we get a tremendous rebound -- throughout most of 1983 GDP growth was approaching the 10% mark.
What does this tell us? Well, first off, the current recovery is not going quite as well as previously expected. This is something that we already know. Yet it is worth examining exactly how sluggish our recovery is at the moment. The 1983 rebound saw GDP growth approach double digits. So far, the post-Great Recession growth rate has not gone beyond 5.7% (see here). Since then, of course, the recovery has stalled, and GDP growth has dipped down to the 2% range.
But there is something else worth noting here. We tend to talk about the supposed boom years of the mid 00s that preceded the last recession. But was GDP growth all that great? If you look at both graphs, you'll see that growth in 2006 and 2007 sometimes dipped down quite sharply, and that the Q1 2006 figure is the only one that is significantly high. Growth in the years leading up to the 1980 recession was not terribly different (note that the graphs use different scales, so that the 80s figures look less impressive at first glance).
In fact, let's take a look at growth through the second half of the 1970s. The brutal "stagflation" recession of the mid-70s officially ended in March 1975. So let's plot GDP growth from that point to February 1979:
Again, the situation is rather erratic. But note how high the GDP growth rate rose in the years following the mid-70s recession. Q4 1977 stands at 0%. And there was a dip down to the 2-3% range in the second half of 1976. Other than that, however, growth was rather significant, ranging from 5-10%, and soaring past the 15% mark in Q2 1978.
What does this tell us? Well, despite our current impressions, growth in the mid-00s was not exactly record-breaking (you can check out the entire decade for yourself if you wish, but the story is generally the same in the years following the 2001 recession). Considering how much of that growth was built on a house of cards that stood atop a crumbling housing market, those figures should be even more sobering. What exactly were we all doing in the 00s? More importantly, where will future growth come from, given that pre-recession economic growth was so unimpressive?
Of course GDP is only one economic indicator. I'm not trying to say that things were "better" in the 70s than they are now -- by most measures that is not true. But this does give us a good idea of the problems that lie ahead in terms of achieving true economic recovery.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Sarah Palin hints at 2012 presidential run?
This article was recently published online by The New York Times:
And, of course, I'm going to provide you with the video evidence. I know that you'll scoff at the notion of viewing such frivolity. But you'll probably watch anyway. Watch it for the cheesy music. Watch it to see the house that Sarah's husband "Tahd" built. Watch it to see for yourself that Mary Hart is still alive. But most of all, watch it because Sarah's words just don't quite have the same impact unless you actually hear her saying them:
Now, all joking aside, what is Ms. Palin getting at here? Well, many pundits are already pointing to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee as the front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Mr. Huckabee probably comes closest to Ms. Palin in terms of values, but he also has far more political experience. So his presence is a problem for Ms. Palin's possible aspirations to the nomination.
Mr. Huckabee came out with a surprise win in the Iowa Republican caucuses in the 2008 election season before quickly fading. This trajectory poses another problem for Ms. Palin, as she would have trouble gauging her own popularity in the early going. On the other hand, she might be able to throw her hat into the ring and then quickly take it back again under such circumstances.
It's still too early to tell what 2012 has in store. But it seems quite clear that Ms. Palin would very much like to be part of the story in that election year.
Sarah Palin cracked open the door to a presidential bid just a little bit wider Thursday, telling “Entertainment Tonight” that she would run in 2012 “if there’s nobody else to do it.”Let's set the content of these statements aside for a moment and reflect on the following fact -- Sarah Palin may have unofficially announced her 2012 presidential run on Entertainment Tonight. Entertainment Tonight. This is the world we live in.
Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, spoke with Mary Hart of “Entertainment Tonight” from her home is Wasilla and told her, “I still have not decided what I’m going to do in 2012.”
“For me, Mary, it’s going to entail a discussion with my family — a real close look at the lay of the land, and to consider whether there are those with that common sense, conservative, pro-Constitution passion, whether there are already candidates out there who can do the job and I’ll get to be their biggest supporter and biggest helpmate if they will have me,” Ms. Palin said. “Or whether there’s nobody willing to do it, to make the tough choices and not care what the critics are going to say about you, just going forward according to what I believe the priorities should be. If there’s nobody else to do it, then of course I would believe that we should do this.”
And, of course, I'm going to provide you with the video evidence. I know that you'll scoff at the notion of viewing such frivolity. But you'll probably watch anyway. Watch it for the cheesy music. Watch it to see the house that Sarah's husband "Tahd" built. Watch it to see for yourself that Mary Hart is still alive. But most of all, watch it because Sarah's words just don't quite have the same impact unless you actually hear her saying them:
Now, all joking aside, what is Ms. Palin getting at here? Well, many pundits are already pointing to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee as the front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Mr. Huckabee probably comes closest to Ms. Palin in terms of values, but he also has far more political experience. So his presence is a problem for Ms. Palin's possible aspirations to the nomination.
Mr. Huckabee came out with a surprise win in the Iowa Republican caucuses in the 2008 election season before quickly fading. This trajectory poses another problem for Ms. Palin, as she would have trouble gauging her own popularity in the early going. On the other hand, she might be able to throw her hat into the ring and then quickly take it back again under such circumstances.
It's still too early to tell what 2012 has in store. But it seems quite clear that Ms. Palin would very much like to be part of the story in that election year.
To the "Progressives", Obama is still beyond reproach
The term "Progressive" - meaning a leftward-leaning politician, pundit, or regular human being - seemed to emerge out of nowhere sometime around 2008. Never mind the fact that early 20th century American Progressivism, which obsessed over Washington's perceived "inefficiency" as well as its cozy relationship to the corporate titans of the day, very much resembles the modern Tea Party movement. But that's a discussion for another day. The topic here is modern Progressives and their seeming inability to criticize Barack Obama, blaming all of his misfortunes on the big bad Republican party.
The Huffington Post has been the online hub for Progressive bloggers for some time now. And many of their writers still can't seem to find a single flaw in Obama's performance as President up to this point. Take this column from writer Michael Shaw (you can see the photographs on the website):
Well, here is Obama speaking on January 27, 2009, after the meeting with the House Republican Caucus that Shaw references:
As you might expect, the focus here is on the forthcoming economic stimulus package. Obama sure sounds non-partisan, stating that he respects the "philosophical differences" the Republicans have with his proposals, and that he doesn't expect 100% support from the party. In the end, of course, not a single House Republican supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Some might argue that Republicans were determined to stonewall Obama at every turn, so there was no way that he could have won their support. But such thinking is anachronistic. The Republicans were reeling after the 2008 elections, having been thoroughly trounced in just about every way imaginable. The swagger the party has now leading up to the midterm elections was non-existent. And you're telling me that the President could not get one single House vote for a stimulus package at a time when the economy seemed to be on the verge of collapse? Surely the fault here does not lay entirely with the Republicans.
Note that Obama said something else important in that clip -- he had not yet had a formal meeting with Republican Senators. In fact, such a meeting would not take place until nearly a year and a half later. Why would it? When Arlen Specter defected to the Democratic party, they had a filibuster-proof majority in the chamber. Progressives everywhere crowed over these developments. But then Massachusetts had to ruin the party by voting in Scott Brown. Oh well.
Anyway, on May 25th, 2010, Obama finally went over to Capitol Hill to hold such a meeting. Here is how The Washington Post described the proceedings:
Clearly Obama faces a fierce and determined opponent in the Republican party. But it is also abundantly clear that he was not even close to being prepared to deal with such an opponent. As for his attempts at bipartisanship, I'll let this Politico article from January 23rd, 2009 do the talking:
The Huffington Post has been the online hub for Progressive bloggers for some time now. And many of their writers still can't seem to find a single flaw in Obama's performance as President up to this point. Take this column from writer Michael Shaw (you can see the photographs on the website):
The "White House Memo" column fronting Monday morning's NYT (Obama's Playbook After Nov. 2) is simply mind-boggling. It paints a picture of Obama as unwilling to work with the GOP, leading off with the assertion it took the President eighteen months to formally engage Republican Senate honcho, Mitch McConnell. Has Obama's "post-partisan" obsession simply vanished from the memory banks? As a memo to the author, Ms. Stolberg, Mr. Obama has been practically licking Mr. McConnell's boots not just regularly, but fresh out of the gate as documented by the pictures we've been running almost since the inaugurationThe New York Times article under discussion may be found here. Here is how it opens:
Take the image above, for example. As early as two months into his term (see: "Catering to the Right") Obama has publicly been soliciting McConnell. (This photo, by the way, was taken four days after Obama had all those GOP Congresspeople to the White House, if anyone remembers that. ...You know, it was that session where the members got in the new president's face, and then collected autographs from "The One" for the folks back home.)
And its been the same for most of the past two years. This shot, for example -- part of an usual pair of back-to-back Obama/McConnell shots on the White House Flickr stream (see: White House Flickr Stream: Professional Right In, Professional Left Out) appeared as recently as two months ago. Once again,the theme is reaching out, reaching out, reaching out ... and McConnell, McConnell, McConnell.
It took President Obama 18 months to invite the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, to the White House for a one-on-one chat. Their Aug. 4 session in the Oval Office — 30 minutes of private time, interrupted only when the president’s daughter Malia called from summer camp to wish her father a happy 49th birthday — was remarkable, not for what was said, but for what it took to make it happen.And it goes on like this for a while. So, who is right?
Not long before the meeting, Trent Lott, the former Republican Senate leader, lamented to his onetime Democratic counterpart, Tom Daschle, that Mr. Obama would never get an important nuclear arms treaty with Russia ratified until he consulted top Republicans. Mr. Lott, who recounted the exchange in an interview, was counting on Mr. Daschle, a close Obama ally, to convey the message; lo and behold, Mr. McConnell soon had an audience with the president.
Well, here is Obama speaking on January 27, 2009, after the meeting with the House Republican Caucus that Shaw references:
As you might expect, the focus here is on the forthcoming economic stimulus package. Obama sure sounds non-partisan, stating that he respects the "philosophical differences" the Republicans have with his proposals, and that he doesn't expect 100% support from the party. In the end, of course, not a single House Republican supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Some might argue that Republicans were determined to stonewall Obama at every turn, so there was no way that he could have won their support. But such thinking is anachronistic. The Republicans were reeling after the 2008 elections, having been thoroughly trounced in just about every way imaginable. The swagger the party has now leading up to the midterm elections was non-existent. And you're telling me that the President could not get one single House vote for a stimulus package at a time when the economy seemed to be on the verge of collapse? Surely the fault here does not lay entirely with the Republicans.
Note that Obama said something else important in that clip -- he had not yet had a formal meeting with Republican Senators. In fact, such a meeting would not take place until nearly a year and a half later. Why would it? When Arlen Specter defected to the Democratic party, they had a filibuster-proof majority in the chamber. Progressives everywhere crowed over these developments. But then Massachusetts had to ruin the party by voting in Scott Brown. Oh well.
Anyway, on May 25th, 2010, Obama finally went over to Capitol Hill to hold such a meeting. Here is how The Washington Post described the proceedings:
President Obama went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday for a rare meeting with Senate Republicans, but the 75-minute session yielded little progress on hot-button topics and left some senators with bruised feelings.Here is Businessweek's take on it:
"He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans," Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) told reporters. "He's pretty thin-skinned."
Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) described the meeting as "testy," and Sen. John Thune (S.D.) called it a "lively discussion." Others questioned whether the "symbolism" of Obama's approach matched the actions of his Democratic congressional allies.
Republican senators complained that President Barack Obama talked about cooperation while pushing a “far left” agenda during a private meeting that one lawmaker described as “very tense.”Now, accusing Obama of having a "far left" agenda is a bit much. But Democratic supporters have to face the facts -- while Obama preached the gospel of bipartisanship for much of his early Presidency, his actions suggested that he wanted bipartisanship to operate on his terms. Remember, this is the same man who expected to have a healthcare bill passed before Congress went on summer recess in August 2009. This is the same President that pushed for cap-and-trade legislation at the same time, got it through the House, and is now apparently abandoning the idea as the bill languishes in the Senate. Shouldn't there have been a plan to get this passed from the get-go?
Obama went to Capitol Hill yesterday to press for bipartisanship on issues such as immigration and energy policy that he wants Congress to tackle this year.
Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who will be one of 12 Senate negotiators on merging House-Senate financial- overhaul bills, said Obama “talked a great deal about bipartisanship” while pushing “very partisan” proposals.
“I asked him how he was able to reconcile that duplicity coming in today to see us,” Corker said yesterday. “I just found it pretty audacious that he would be here today as we move into election season using Republican senators as a prop to talk about bipartisanship.”
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the president has been pushing proposals on the “far left” and trying to pass them with support from only a few Republicans. “That’s not our idea of bipartisanship,” he said.
Clearly Obama faces a fierce and determined opponent in the Republican party. But it is also abundantly clear that he was not even close to being prepared to deal with such an opponent. As for his attempts at bipartisanship, I'll let this Politico article from January 23rd, 2009 do the talking:
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.Unfortunately for Obama, it seems as if the leader of a newly-minted Republican House might be able offer the same retort in the near future.
Viewers abandoning Fox network in droves
Fox News may be the kingpin among national news networks, but the Fox network itself is not doing so hot, according to Businessweek:
American Idol is looking increasingly dated. Meanwhile, the World Series - contested last year by team from two huge television audiences in New York and Philadelphia - is being waged by smaller cities this time around.
Businessweek notes one bright spot:
Times are changing quickly. The young people that bought into the silly shows that made Fox a ratings winner in the 00s are getting old and moving on. There seems to be nothing out there that could appeal to a younger generation that grew up with Web 2.0 (yes, grew up with Web 2.0...you are getting old). Network television is already losing its audience to cable stations and other electronic distractions, and the folks in charge don't seem to have a clue how to keep the viewers they have left.
News Corp.’s Fox network has lost almost 17 percent of its young-adult viewers five weeks into the television season, a drop that threatens to dethrone the ratings leader after six years.It's not hard to see why Fox is in trouble. The Simpsons and House are long past their "best before" dates -- The Simpsons hasn't been funny in at least a decade. Juvenile "Family Guy"-style cartoons are starting to wear quite thin -- and Fox has three such shows in their lineup ("The Cleveland Show" and "American Dad!" being the others).
...
Fox’s decline this year is underscored by shrinking audiences for the medical show “House” and the long-running “The Simpsons.” Newer animated shows “Family Guy” and “The Cleveland Show” are down 15 percent and 31 percent respectively, according to Nielsen data.
American Idol is looking increasingly dated. Meanwhile, the World Series - contested last year by team from two huge television audiences in New York and Philadelphia - is being waged by smaller cities this time around.
Businessweek notes one bright spot:
A bright spot in Fox’s ratings has been continued growth for the audience of the musical comedy “Glee.” The show, now in its second year, is rated fourth among 18-to-49-year-olds with a 39 percent increase in viewers, according to the network.Glee is a fun show, but one gets the feeling that it will start to get old after a while. It's shallow on plot and thick on gimmicks.
To further showcase the program, Fox plans to air an episode after its Super Bowl telecast, Beckman said.
Times are changing quickly. The young people that bought into the silly shows that made Fox a ratings winner in the 00s are getting old and moving on. There seems to be nothing out there that could appeal to a younger generation that grew up with Web 2.0 (yes, grew up with Web 2.0...you are getting old). Network television is already losing its audience to cable stations and other electronic distractions, and the folks in charge don't seem to have a clue how to keep the viewers they have left.
Turkey and the EU
The Economist has long been an advocate of Turkey joining the European Union, as evidenced by this recent article. In such articles, The Economist willfully ignores the country's insidious human rights abuses. Turkey still throws journalists in jail when they speak out too strongly against the government. Facebook is banned. And, of course, they country still officially denies that the Armenian Genocide took place. Does this sound like an ideal candidate for a club that, however hypocritically, represents fundamental values like freedom and justice?
Yet the economic advantages of having Turkey in the EU are not too be taken lightly. As The Economist states in this column, "Turkey makes things like furniture, cars, cement (it is the world’s biggest exporter), shoes, televisions and DVD players. In a sense, it is Europe’s BRIC: it might be called the China of Europe." The addition of a manufacturing economy to the EU's rich services sector could give the continent new life, and a unique position in the world. The array of new firms that might sprout up in Europe to service Turkey's economy could be staggering. It's an exciting prospect.
Moreover, as The Economist states, "Backed by its strong economy, Turkey has become highly active in its diplomacy across the Middle East, in the Balkans and as far afield as Africa—and not always to the satisfaction of its allies." Turkey's relations with Israel have soured, but perhaps that is a short-term problem. While officially secular, Turkey still has clout in the Middle East that no other Western nation could ever hope to have. It is allowed into the EU fold, it could become a powerful mediator between east and west.
As I said, human rights abuses in the country must be addressed. Unfortunately, however, they do not seem to be the biggest obstacle tho Turkey's accession to the EU. Rather, it is opposition in the club itself that is causing problems. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in particular, are absolutely against adding Turkey as a member. As stated by The Economist:
Sadly, however, the most pressing issue preventing Turkey from becoming a member of the EU is the growing anti-Islam sentiment sweeping through Europe. Note the following citation from this Economist article on German domestic policy:
Turkey has many other domestic issues to wrangle with, as The Economist outlines. And, as I said, much has to be done with regards to human rights in the country. The Economist often lets itself become overly enchanted with the economic benefits of the country joining the EU. As of now, however, the economy should be a secondary, or even tertiary, consideration.
Yet the economic advantages of having Turkey in the EU are not too be taken lightly. As The Economist states in this column, "Turkey makes things like furniture, cars, cement (it is the world’s biggest exporter), shoes, televisions and DVD players. In a sense, it is Europe’s BRIC: it might be called the China of Europe." The addition of a manufacturing economy to the EU's rich services sector could give the continent new life, and a unique position in the world. The array of new firms that might sprout up in Europe to service Turkey's economy could be staggering. It's an exciting prospect.
Moreover, as The Economist states, "Backed by its strong economy, Turkey has become highly active in its diplomacy across the Middle East, in the Balkans and as far afield as Africa—and not always to the satisfaction of its allies." Turkey's relations with Israel have soured, but perhaps that is a short-term problem. While officially secular, Turkey still has clout in the Middle East that no other Western nation could ever hope to have. It is allowed into the EU fold, it could become a powerful mediator between east and west.
As I said, human rights abuses in the country must be addressed. Unfortunately, however, they do not seem to be the biggest obstacle tho Turkey's accession to the EU. Rather, it is opposition in the club itself that is causing problems. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in particular, are absolutely against adding Turkey as a member. As stated by The Economist:
Mrs Merkel has long opposed Turkish EU membership, advocating a “privileged partnership” instead. Mr Sarkozy has consistently opposed Turkish entry on principle. Public opinion in Austria, the Netherlands and some other countries has become more hostile.America's support of Turkey as an EU member probably does not help their situation, either. Most European countries are still bitter over the Iraq War debacle and are not exactly looking to America for advice.
Sadly, however, the most pressing issue preventing Turkey from becoming a member of the EU is the growing anti-Islam sentiment sweeping through Europe. Note the following citation from this Economist article on German domestic policy:
Germany’s bestselling book is “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (“Germany does away with itself”), a warning by a director of the Bundesbank, since forced out of his job, that too much child-bearing by the poor and by immigrants (especially Muslims), and too little by the educated classes, dooms the country to decline. The book’s popularity has shaken Germany. Xenophobic parties play little role in politics, but the resentments that feed their popularity elsewhere are just as potent. A third of Germans think the country is overrun by foreigners, according to a newly published poll; a majority favour “sharply restricting” Muslim religious practice. Over a tenth would even welcome a Führer who would govern with “a strong hand”—a sign that the embers of extremism still glow.Such anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments do not bode well for any potential Muslim entrant into the EU.
Turkey has many other domestic issues to wrangle with, as The Economist outlines. And, as I said, much has to be done with regards to human rights in the country. The Economist often lets itself become overly enchanted with the economic benefits of the country joining the EU. As of now, however, the economy should be a secondary, or even tertiary, consideration.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Could the Republicans blunder into 2012?
An interesting AP article (the MSNBC crosspost is provided here) reflects on the potential pitfalls that face the Republicans should they emerge victorious in the upcoming midterm elections.
As the situation stands now, a takeover of the House seems rather likely, while the Senate is a long shot. And, of course, the President is still a Democrat. This will make for a rather uneasy legislature.
This is particularly true given that many of the new Republicans will be enthusiastic Tea Party-backed young guns. The article explains the problem well:
The problem here is that the Senate is going to prove to be a bottleneck for House ideas no matter who controls it. Compromises to House bills will be necessary in order to avoid filibusters and the like. When such modified bills are then passed back to Congress for approval, how will the Tea Party folks in office react? Will they be willing to give in on their values in order to achieve small victories? Or will they balk at such compromises?
And then there is the matter of President Obama himself, who has the right to veto any bill passed by Congress. One gets the feeling that he cannot overuse this privilege, especially if the Democrats maintain control of the Senate. How could he possibly nix legislation that his own party approves, however reluctantly.
The key here will be to watch the House, and not just on the vaunted "first 100 days". It will be how the House performs over the long term that will determine how the Republican brand will be perceived when it comes time for the next presidential election.
As the situation stands now, a takeover of the House seems rather likely, while the Senate is a long shot. And, of course, the President is still a Democrat. This will make for a rather uneasy legislature.
This is particularly true given that many of the new Republicans will be enthusiastic Tea Party-backed young guns. The article explains the problem well:
First-termers who ran as enemies of business-as-usual in Washington aren't likely to be in the mood to accept the standard bargaining that's virtually certain to result once their colleagues on Capitol Hill and outside interest groups — including the business lobby — get a look at the GOP's proposals.The uncompromising tenor of the House could clash badly with that of the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell, who has been the face of Republican senatorial opposition to the Obama regime over the past two years, had this to say:
"They come in with an authenticity that nobody has: 'We were elected in the year of the tea party. We know what the people want. You are just old fuddy duddies who have been here forever and are part of the problem,'" said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform who often advises congressional Republicans.
"I think humility and gratitude is the appropriate response to the midcourse correction that I think is coming — not, you know, sort of chest-beating or spiking the ball in the end zone or acting like we have been entrusted with the entire federal government," McConnell said in a recent interview.Even The Heritage Foundation, and arch-conservative think tank, has reservations about what might come to pass:
"The Republican Party is still a tattered brand. It's not as if people are enthusiastically embracing the Republican brand — they're rejecting what has been done the last two years," said Michael Franc of the conservative Heritage Foundation, a House aide following the 1994 Republican takeover. "They're going to have to do something that is dramatic enough to say to people, 'We heard you.'"It is worth remembering that Bill Clinton faced off against a similarly young and enthusiastic Congress in 1994, and emerged victorious in his second presidential election in 1998.
The problem here is that the Senate is going to prove to be a bottleneck for House ideas no matter who controls it. Compromises to House bills will be necessary in order to avoid filibusters and the like. When such modified bills are then passed back to Congress for approval, how will the Tea Party folks in office react? Will they be willing to give in on their values in order to achieve small victories? Or will they balk at such compromises?
And then there is the matter of President Obama himself, who has the right to veto any bill passed by Congress. One gets the feeling that he cannot overuse this privilege, especially if the Democrats maintain control of the Senate. How could he possibly nix legislation that his own party approves, however reluctantly.
The key here will be to watch the House, and not just on the vaunted "first 100 days". It will be how the House performs over the long term that will determine how the Republican brand will be perceived when it comes time for the next presidential election.
American believe in equality, but they don't want equality
The Tea Party movement and its supporters are all about the capitalism. They accuse President Barack Obama of believing in an agenda in which wealth is redistributed in such a way that the U.S. will become some sort of strange neo-Marxist amalgam. They believe he wants to take taxpayer dollars and dole them out to the poor, to his pals on Wall Street, the auto companies (so that they may become federal clients), third-world green energy concerns (via a tax on carbon), and, of course, to a "world government" that they envision as the ultimate endgame of his evil plans. Tea Party people, on the other hand, prefer that the rich stay rich, and that the poor pull themselves up by their bootstraps and take care of themselves.
All of this makes a recent study by scholars at Duke and Harvard Business School, as reported in Businessweek, all the more intriguing. According to the study, Americans believe that wealth is distributed much more evenly along class lines than is the reality. Even more surprising than this, they believe that income distribution should be even more equal to what they perceive. Here is how Businessweek describes it:
So if Americans were more aware of these numbers, would a socialist revolution be in the offing. Here is Businesweek's take on the situation:
The fact is that the theory of supply-side economics, closely associated with "trickle-down economics", still holds great sway in America. Fox News pundits such as John Stossel are never shy to praise its supposed virtues:
Of course, there are many pundits - and a good deal of data - that refute such ideas. But that's a debate for another time. Let's just say for the time being that, despite what Businessweek thinks, many Americans see inequality as a virtue, not a problem.
All of this makes a recent study by scholars at Duke and Harvard Business School, as reported in Businessweek, all the more intriguing. According to the study, Americans believe that wealth is distributed much more evenly along class lines than is the reality. Even more surprising than this, they believe that income distribution should be even more equal to what they perceive. Here is how Businessweek describes it:
It might be surprising to learn that Americans are in broad agreement on the need for a more equal distribution of wealth. Yet that's what a forthcoming study by two psychologists, Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School, has concluded. First, Ariely and Norton asked thousands of Americans what they thought the nation's actual wealth distribution looks like: how much is owned by the wealthiest 20 percent of the population, the next-wealthiest 20 percent, and on down. The researchers then asked people what, in an ideal world, they would like the nation's wealth distribution to be.Here is a chart borrowed from the Businessweek website that makes this clearer:
Ariely and Norton found that Americans think they live in a far more equal country than they in fact do. On average, those surveyed estimated that the wealthiest 20percent of Americans own 59 percent of the nation's wealth; in reality the top quintile owns around 84 percent. The respondents further estimated that the poorest 20 percent own 3.7 percent, when in reality they own 0.1percent.
And when asked to give their ideal distribution, they described, on average, a nation where the wealth distribution looks not like the U.S. but like Sweden, only more so—the wealthiest quintile would control just 32 percent of the wealth, the poorest just over 10 percent. "People dramatically underestimated the extent of wealth inequality in the U.S.," says Ariely. "And they wanted it to be even more equal."
The United States, according to this study, is a nation of people who would like to spread the wealth around. They just don't know it.
So if Americans were more aware of these numbers, would a socialist revolution be in the offing. Here is Businesweek's take on the situation:
It's possible that if more people understood how deeply unequal American society has become they would support measures to combat it. The U.S. now has the world's second-lowest level of income mobility between generations, after England, according to research by economist Miles Corak at the University of Ottawa. Yet studies have also shown that voters have an impressive ability to absorb information that contradicts their beliefs without letting it change their minds. People support the abstract goal of equality, it seems, while staunchly opposing specific government measures—whether increasing tax rates or limiting executive pay—designed to impose it. Getting there, in other words, is what starts the political arguments, even at a moment of widespread bipartisan anger at Wall Street.This is a rather balanced analysis, but I believe that it fails to truly capture how the average American really feels. Businessweek claims that "people support the abstract goal of equality". But is this really true?
The fact is that the theory of supply-side economics, closely associated with "trickle-down economics", still holds great sway in America. Fox News pundits such as John Stossel are never shy to praise its supposed virtues:
Taxes discourage wealth creation. That hurts everyone, the lower end of the income scale most of all. An economy that, through freedom, encourages the production of wealth raises the living standards of lower-income people as well as everyone else.Many Americans, at least on the right side of the spectrum, generally see no problem with living in an unequal society. That does not mean that they enjoy the fact that poverty is still rampant. Rather, they believe that the unequal distribution of wealth is necessary to raise the poor to a higher living standard. The rich own much of the wealth, but if they didn't, so the theory goes, then there would be no mechanism by which additional wealth could be created.
A free society is not a zero-sum game in which every gain is offset by someone's loss. As long as government keeps its thumb off the scales, the "makers" who get rich do so by making others better off. When the government allocates capital or creates barriers to competition, however, all bets are off.
Of course, there are many pundits - and a good deal of data - that refute such ideas. But that's a debate for another time. Let's just say for the time being that, despite what Businessweek thinks, many Americans see inequality as a virtue, not a problem.
Democrats losing support in formerly solid demographic groups
Democrats formerly could count on certain demographic groups for the bulk of their votes. Such groups included women, who are presumably more concerned about issues concerning children than (often absentee) men, the poor, who often depend on social assistance, and Catholics, who tended to shy away from the WASP aristocracy in charge of the Republicans. As this New York Times article (crossposted here on MSNBC) indicates, the Democrats are in trouble with regards to these folks with the midterm elections just days away:
That's not to say that certain races, such as the Senate race in Nevada between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle, won't go down to the wire. One misstep or victory by one side or the other could decide the race. But this supposedly sudden surge in Democratic interest? It doesn't seem to be happening.
Critical parts of the coalition that delivered President Obama to the White House in 2008 and gave Democrats control of Congress in 2006 are switching their allegiance to the Republicans in the final phase of the midterm Congressional elections, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.Lately there has been much talk about Democratic voters closing the precious "enthusiasm gap" as compared to Republican voters. Apparently much of this has been little more than media hype:
Republicans have wiped out the advantage held by Democrats in recent election cycles among women, Catholics, less affluent Americans and independents; all of those groups broke for Mr. Obama in 2008 and for congressional Democrats when they grabbed both chambers from the Republicans four years ago, according to exit polls.
The poll found that a greater proportion of women would choose Republicans over Democrats in House races than at any time since exit polls began tracking the breakdown in 1982.
Like several other national polls, the latest Times/CBS poll shows a considerable “enthusiasm” gap between Republicans and Democrats heading into Election Day. Six in 10 Republicans said they were more enthusiastic to vote this year than usual. Four in 10 Democrats said the same.More about women voters here:
In the case of women, who Obama has been actively courting this fall, the shift toward the Republicans was especially marked in the latest poll, especially when compared to their stated preferences in the very last Times/CBS poll, in mid-September.All of this seems to run counter to the narrative that most of the MSM has been articulating over the past few weeks -- that is, that the Democrats have been enjoying a bounce in support with the midterms looming ever-closer. Obama has certainly been working hard to create that impression, and the media seems to be reporting his motives as fact without doing their homework.
In that poll, women favored Democrats over Republicans by seven percentage points. In the latest poll, women say they are likely to vote to support a Republican over a Democrat by four percentage points, suggesting Republican gains among women who were undecided as of last month.
That's not to say that certain races, such as the Senate race in Nevada between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle, won't go down to the wire. One misstep or victory by one side or the other could decide the race. But this supposedly sudden surge in Democratic interest? It doesn't seem to be happening.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A must-read article on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
It's worthwhile to learn more about the context surrounding the release of hundreds of thousands of U.S. Army documents by WikiLeaks. To that end, MSNBC.com has crossposted a New York Times article about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Mr. Assange's story is indeed strange. He lives like a paranoid itinerant, moving from place to place, always convinced that his life is in danger. The article makes it clear that he is losing support even among his friends and colleagues:
The Iraq War was a debacle by any measure, even if it ended with a measure of stability in the country (which is still extremely unsteady). The Afghanistan War is quickly turning into another Iraq War. These are conflicts with unseemly stories that have to come out one way or another. Yes, there is the important issue of putting troop and informants at risk, but it sounds like WikiLeaks people are being quite careful with the release of the Iraq documents. The Pentagon is complaining only because its mistakes are being exposed.
It's also worth watching this CNN interview with Mr. Assange which deals with similar issues. Mr. Assange walks out in the end:
Mr. Assange's story is indeed strange. He lives like a paranoid itinerant, moving from place to place, always convinced that his life is in danger. The article makes it clear that he is losing support even among his friends and colleagues:
Part of the problem is Mr. Assange's dictatorial style, as illustrated here:Much has changed since 2006, when Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, used years of computer hacking and what friends call a near genius I.Q. to establish WikiLeaks, redefining whistle-blowing by gathering secrets in bulk, storing them beyond the reach of governments and others determined to retrieve them, then releasing them instantly, and globally.
Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.
Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for NATO troops. “We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he spoke about it afterwards,” said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks volunteer and a member of Iceland’s Parliament. “If he could just focus on the important things he does, it would be better.”
Effectively, as Mr. Assange pursues his fugitive’s life, his leadership is enforced over the Internet. Even remotely, his style is imperious. When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland, questioned Mr. Assange’s judgment over a number of issues in an online exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. “I don’t like your tone,” he said, according to a transcript. “If it continues, you’re out.”And, of course, there is this issue:
Mr. Assange cast himself as indispensable. “I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest,” he said. “If you have a problem with me,” he told Mr. Snorrason, using an expletive, he should quit.
In an interview about the exchange, Mr. Snorrason’s conclusion was stark. “He is not in his right mind,” he said. In London, Mr. Assange was dismissive of all those who have criticized him. “These are not consequential people,” he said.
He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange denied the allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes the claims as “a smear campaign,” the scandal has compounded the pressures of his cloaked life.Of course, having said all this, I can't say that the release of these documents was a bad thing. Their release can be compared to the illegal leak of the Pentagon Papers, as the article suggests. Its worth remembering exactly what we learned with the release of that top-secret document:
The papers revealed that the U.S. had deliberately expanded its war with bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none of which had been reported by media in the US. The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had misled the public regarding their intentions. For example, the John F. Kennedy administration had planned to overthrow South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem before his death in a November 1963 coup. President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign, including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.It was because of the Pentagon Papers that we truly understood the madness that was the Vietnam War.
The Iraq War was a debacle by any measure, even if it ended with a measure of stability in the country (which is still extremely unsteady). The Afghanistan War is quickly turning into another Iraq War. These are conflicts with unseemly stories that have to come out one way or another. Yes, there is the important issue of putting troop and informants at risk, but it sounds like WikiLeaks people are being quite careful with the release of the Iraq documents. The Pentagon is complaining only because its mistakes are being exposed.
It's also worth watching this CNN interview with Mr. Assange which deals with similar issues. Mr. Assange walks out in the end:
Friday, October 22, 2010
Canadian newspaper thinks torture is merely part of a "fascinating" narrative
Apparently it's not only American media outlets that are downplaying the revelations of torture by Iraqi troops, as revealed in the release of U.S. Army documents by WikiLeaks. Apparently the Toronto-based Globe & Mail, which printed an article entitled "Opinion mixed on significance of WikiLeaks’ latest revelations", thinks that there multiple perspectives on the issue are valid.
The article begins as follows:
The article begins as follows:
To some, the thousands of confidential U.S. military field reports released Friday amount to a damning indictment of the United States’ role in Iraq, providing long-awaited figures on the number of civilians killed and graphic details of war crimes gone unpunished by Iraqi troops."Fascinating, matter-of-fact accounts"? Like the following, I assume (also taken from the article):
To others, however, the trove of documents offers no great revelations, simply adding important first-hand observations to our knowledge of the war.
What no one disputes is that the piles of information, released by whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, offer fascinating, matter-of-fact accounts of day-to-day life on the front lines of a long and gruelling war.
Al-Jazeera highlighted one of the documents’ key revelations: the deaths of some 109,000 people, including more than 66,000 civilians. The total had previously never been released, as U.S. and British military officials have insisted they do not keep a running total of the number of civilians killed in the conflict.Sorry, I don't find anything "fascinating" about civilian deaths and brutal torture. Apparently major North American media outlets think otherwise.
The Guardian, a British newspaper, picked up on reports of the torture of detainees in the custody of Iraqi soldiers and police, including six incidents in which people were apparently killed. One graphic report describes a video of Iraqi Army soldiers – one of whom is identified by name and rank – beating and shooting a bound prisoner in the street. That report, like many others detailing abuse, was apparently ignored and the soldiers involved not investigated, the paper reported.
MSNBC.com chides foreign press for being critical of torture...seriously
Details from the infamous cache of hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related U.S. Army documents obtained by WikiLeaks are slowly being revealed. As reported in the New York Times (this link will take you to the MSNBC.com crosspost), the documents were released early to certain news organizations:
Now, MSNBC.com has an article out entitled "News organizations look at leak with different eyes". Here they accuse foreign media outlets of taking a staunch anti-American stance, with the exception of The Times:
Okay, so we have some news outlets taking one position on this story, and others taking a different one. That's what's supposed to happen, right? But if you have a look at The Guardian article about the documents - and I suggest that you do - you'll see that this is not really an issue that allows for a wide range of opinion. In fact, the documents reveal horrifying details of brutal torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi soldiers. Here is an excerpt from the article:
We're not talking about an incident or two that got lost in the fog of war. We are talking about repeated allegations of brutal beatings and killings. How can MSNBC.com possibly think that the "splashing" of such revelations on the front pages of any newspaper constitutes a radical response?
I'm not saying that a witch hunt is in order to track down each and every individual responsible for this mess. But certainly it isn't asking too much to hold some sort of investigation in how this was allowed to happen, with promises from the Pentagon that it will review and improve relevant policies. This is torture that happened under the watch of the U.S. Army. This isn't something you can take lightly.
The Iraqi documents were made available to The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, the French newspaper Le Monde and the German magazine Der Spiegel on the condition that they be embargoed until now.This list also includes Al-Jazeera, by the way,
Now, MSNBC.com has an article out entitled "News organizations look at leak with different eyes". Here they accuse foreign media outlets of taking a staunch anti-American stance, with the exception of The Times:
The Guardian, Le Monde and Al-Jazeera splashed the more sensational revelations on their home pages under similar headlines skewering Washington for its inaction on Iraq's torture of more than 1,000 people.If you have a look at the New York Times article, you'll see that its a rather agnostic as well, and does not reveal much in the way of details from the actual documents.
The Times' three equally played headlines, by contrast, revealed that "Reports Detail Iran Aid to Iraq Militias," "Civilians Paid War's Heaviest Toll" and "Detainees Suffered in Iraqi Hands." It characterized the U.S. response to allegations of Iraq torture as "brutality from which the Americans at times averted their eyes."
- "Secret files reveal how US turned blind eye to Iraq torture," said The Guardian.
- "US turned blind eye to torture," Al-Jazeera said.
- "Iraq: The horror revealed by WikiLeaks," Le Monde said.
Okay, so we have some news outlets taking one position on this story, and others taking a different one. That's what's supposed to happen, right? But if you have a look at The Guardian article about the documents - and I suggest that you do - you'll see that this is not really an issue that allows for a wide range of opinion. In fact, the documents reveal horrifying details of brutal torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi soldiers. Here is an excerpt from the article:
The numerous reports of detainee abuse, often supported by medical evidence, describe prisoners shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee's apparent death.Here is the Pentagon's response to all of this, by the way, as pulled from the aforementioned MSNBC.com article:
As recently as December the Americans were passed a video apparently showing Iraqi army officers executing a prisoner in Tal Afar, northern Iraq. The log states: "The footage shows approximately 12 Iraqi army soldiers. Ten IA soldiers were talking to one another while two soldiers held the detainee. The detainee had his hands bound … The footage shows the IA soldiers moving the detainee into the street, pushing him to the ground, punching him and shooting him."
The report named at least one perpetrator and was passed to coalition forces. But the logs reveal that the coalition has a formal policy of ignoring such allegations. They record "no investigation is necessary" and simply pass reports to the same Iraqi units implicated in the violence. By contrast all allegations involving coalition forces are subject to formal inquiries. Some cases of alleged abuse by UK and US troops are also detailed in the logs.
In two Iraqi cases postmortems revealed evidence of death by torture. On 27 August 2009 a US medical officer found "bruises and burns as well as visible injuries to the head, arm, torso, legs and neck" on the body of one man claimed by police to have killed himself. On 3 December 2008 another detainee, said by police to have died of "bad kidneys", was found to have "evidence of some type of unknown surgical procedure on [his] abdomen".
A Pentagon official denied that Washington "ignored" the reports, telling NBC News that it passed along all claims to Iraq authorities and that "whatever they did with that information was up to the Iraqi government."I'm sorry, but how is it that any right-thinking person can possibly believe that this is anything but a serious indictment of Pentagon and military protocol? Repeated allegations of brutal torture were merely "passed along" to Iraqi authorities. And they think that's okay? That's the best excuse that they can come up with?
We're not talking about an incident or two that got lost in the fog of war. We are talking about repeated allegations of brutal beatings and killings. How can MSNBC.com possibly think that the "splashing" of such revelations on the front pages of any newspaper constitutes a radical response?
I'm not saying that a witch hunt is in order to track down each and every individual responsible for this mess. But certainly it isn't asking too much to hold some sort of investigation in how this was allowed to happen, with promises from the Pentagon that it will review and improve relevant policies. This is torture that happened under the watch of the U.S. Army. This isn't something you can take lightly.
Race to the bottom in Nevada
The race for Harry Reid's Nevada Senate seat has become a battle between two sides that seem particularly adept at self-sabotage.
Incumbent Reid's popularity has been slipping for some time, and he is a primary target of Republican criticism (and, it should be noted, a good amount of Democratic criticism). So, really, the Republicans should have had this one locked a while ago. But the Tea Party influence in the state resulted in an unexpected victory for former Nevada State Assembly member Sharron Angle.
Ms. Angle supports the typical far-right Tea Party policy position, including the abolition and/or privatization of numerous federal departments and programs. That alone makes many voters uncomfortable. But she is also a supporter of Scientology, has claimed that Sharia law operates in Dearborn, Michigan, and has also hinted that she supports a return to Prohibition. Yikes.
So you might think that Mr. Reid had this one locked up, right? But he has been doing plenty of blundering of his own. First came his poor performance in a recent debate, in which he rambled on rather incoherently and Ms. Angle kept telling him to "man up". Watch some of the fun below:
But Mr. Reid has found a way to top himself by claiming that he alone staved off a worldwide economic depression:
Really, it's hard to support either of these candidates. Pity the poor voters in Nevada.
Incumbent Reid's popularity has been slipping for some time, and he is a primary target of Republican criticism (and, it should be noted, a good amount of Democratic criticism). So, really, the Republicans should have had this one locked a while ago. But the Tea Party influence in the state resulted in an unexpected victory for former Nevada State Assembly member Sharron Angle.
Ms. Angle supports the typical far-right Tea Party policy position, including the abolition and/or privatization of numerous federal departments and programs. That alone makes many voters uncomfortable. But she is also a supporter of Scientology, has claimed that Sharia law operates in Dearborn, Michigan, and has also hinted that she supports a return to Prohibition. Yikes.
So you might think that Mr. Reid had this one locked up, right? But he has been doing plenty of blundering of his own. First came his poor performance in a recent debate, in which he rambled on rather incoherently and Ms. Angle kept telling him to "man up". Watch some of the fun below:
But Mr. Reid has found a way to top himself by claiming that he alone staved off a worldwide economic depression:
The Nevada Democrat, whose poll numbers are see-sawing against rival Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle, told MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Thursday night that voters in his state don't feel reassured when Reid tells them of his global achievement because they've fallen so far down the economic food chain.The Atlantic Wire has a nice summary of how the fallout from these remarks is currently playing out. Needless to say, Republicans are having a field day.
"We were at the top and we've fallen very hard. So people have been hurting, and I understand that, and it doesn't give them comfort or solace for me to tell them, you know, but for me we'd be in a worldwide depression. They want to know what I've done for them, and that's why it's important for me, any chance I get, to say that my number one job is to create jobs," Reid said, blasting Angle for saying it's not the role of government to create jobs.
Really, it's hard to support either of these candidates. Pity the poor voters in Nevada.
The Economist plays the race card, badly
Every once in a while The Economist deals with the issue of race in America, as they have done in this recent column about Barack Obama's issues with "working-class whites". In nearly every case, they blunder badly. Their discomfort with the topic can be seen in how they present it -- the commentary they provide is weighed down with statistic after statistic. It's as if any comment they make has to be backed up with a myriad of numbers so that they aren't accused of taking a biased position. In the end, however, the numbers they present are given sufficient context, and therefore the statement they back up don't hold up.
First off, the column never states exactly what a "working-class white" is. Are we talking about people whose income is below a certain level? Are we talking about people who work blue-collar jobs? Are they unionized or not? Such questions are important. The "working-class whites" that work the auto plants in Detroit lean strongly Democratic because they are members of the UAW. "Working-class whites" from, say, Texas, will like vote Republican since Texas is a strongly Republican state. So right off the bat we have problems.
The column then shifts its focus to West Virignia, and states the following:
Anyway, we move from there to more general statements about race and the midterm elections:
Yet at the end of all of this, the column tries to circle back around this issue with the following conclusion:
You get the feeling that The Economist was trying to say something here, but that the race issue is touchy that they couldn't speak clearly. Better just to leave it alone, then.
First off, the column never states exactly what a "working-class white" is. Are we talking about people whose income is below a certain level? Are we talking about people who work blue-collar jobs? Are they unionized or not? Such questions are important. The "working-class whites" that work the auto plants in Detroit lean strongly Democratic because they are members of the UAW. "Working-class whites" from, say, Texas, will like vote Republican since Texas is a strongly Republican state. So right off the bat we have problems.
The column then shifts its focus to West Virignia, and states the following:
What it fails to point out here is that Mr. Byrd was the last of the old time Democrats from the says when the party could count on the Solid South block of voters. Most of them flocked to the Republican party in the 60s and 70s. Mr. Byrd may not have been a Republican, but he was probably close enough that many right-leaning voters could still support him. It is his absence that is making this race tight for Democrats.For more than half a century, the Mountain State sent the late Robert Byrd, a Democrat, to represent it in the Senate. Now the state’s popular governor, Joe Manchin, also a Democrat, is hoping to take his place. But this year everything is different. Despite Mr Manchin’s relentless efforts to distance himself from that fellow in the White House, the race is a toss-up.
Anyway, we move from there to more general statements about race and the midterm elections:
Seriously? Blacks "stuck" by "their man"? Yes, more African-American voters turned up in 2008, excited by the prospect of a black President. But, as the article also points out, many of are Democratic supporters anyway. As for the "working-class whites" supporting McCain, again, what are the real numbers here? Who are these voters, exactly? What was the breakdown state-by-state? Was there a statistically significant shift in votes away from Obama in areas that normally enjoy Democratic support? Without more details, these judgments about race and voting patterns are hopelessly rash.Their ["working-class whites"] votes will matter less in the future, as their educational attainment rises and their share of the electorate continues to fall. Minority voters, who cast a mere 14% of voters in 1994, cast more than a quarter of them in 2008, and this share will grow.
...
Between now and the long run, however, come the mid-terms. And the prospect of a Democratic rout prompts an inevitable question. Have such voters turned on the Democrats because Mr Obama is black? His election was hailed as proof that America had moved beyond race. And yet voting in the mid-terms will be polarised by race. Most whites will pull the Republican lever. Almost all blacks and most Hispanics will vote Democrat.
Race was a factor in 2008, and still is. Why else would blacks alone have stuck so staunchly by their man? As for working-class whites, they did not much care for Mr Obama even in 2008, preferring John McCain by a margin of 18%.
Yet at the end of all of this, the column tries to circle back around this issue with the following conclusion:
So wait, now we're saying that race is not an issue? Racism is "beyond the pale"? We're all good now? Then why all the talk earlier about why African-Americans vote one way and "working-class whites" the other? What was the point of all this, anyway?The electorate may be divided by race, but no longer mainly because of race. Some of Mr Obama’s enemies have tried to harness pockets of bigotry by painting him in various ways as un-American. But outright racism in politics is now beyond the pale and will probably have little to do with the coming rejection of the Democrats by the white working class. A wrecked economy and the feeling that their president is out of touch are reason enough. It has, after all, happened before. In two short years from 1992 to 1994, when Bill Clinton was president, white working-class support for the Republicans soared like a rocket from 47% to 61%. Nobody blamed that on skin colour.
You get the feeling that The Economist was trying to say something here, but that the race issue is touchy that they couldn't speak clearly. Better just to leave it alone, then.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Tea Party movement wants to know what you think of it
On one of my quasi-regular visits to the Fox News website, I came across the following ad:
At first I thought that the Yes/No thing was a put-on. I figured clicking anywhere would take me to the same page on the website being advertised. But it turns out I was wrong. Clicking on "No" takes you to this page, which I've screen captured in part below:
Nice to know that my vote was counted, though I don't exactly know who's doing the counting, or why. And I guess I support "The Rule of Law", and have no problem with "Life, Liberty And Pursuit of Happiness". Does that make me 28.57% Tea Partier?
Oh yes, and not to be picky, but there shouldn't be an apostrophe in "it's".
Now, clicking on "Yes" brings you to this page, which I've captured in part below:
Really guys, you don't need to Capitalize Every Word. Interesting how Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer are mentioned -- I guess they've given up Christine O'Donnell's chances at getting a Senate seat in Delaware given her dismal poll results. Can't win them all, I suppose.
So, what, do I give the site credit for its democratic approach to advertising? I guess so. But that website really needs work.
At first I thought that the Yes/No thing was a put-on. I figured clicking anywhere would take me to the same page on the website being advertised. But it turns out I was wrong. Clicking on "No" takes you to this page, which I've screen captured in part below:
Nice to know that my vote was counted, though I don't exactly know who's doing the counting, or why. And I guess I support "The Rule of Law", and have no problem with "Life, Liberty And Pursuit of Happiness". Does that make me 28.57% Tea Partier?
Oh yes, and not to be picky, but there shouldn't be an apostrophe in "it's".
Now, clicking on "Yes" brings you to this page, which I've captured in part below:
Really guys, you don't need to Capitalize Every Word. Interesting how Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer are mentioned -- I guess they've given up Christine O'Donnell's chances at getting a Senate seat in Delaware given her dismal poll results. Can't win them all, I suppose.
So, what, do I give the site credit for its democratic approach to advertising? I guess so. But that website really needs work.
Karl Rove wants to make sure you never forget him
Were you dying to hear Karl Rove's assessment of how the midterm elections are going to play out? Of course you did! Well, even if you didn't, Mr. Rove emptied his brain onto the pages of the Wall Street Journal -- you can get the online version of his article here.
So what does The Architect make of the Republicans' push to take back Congress? Well, here is what he has to say:
Before unveiling his prediction, Mr. Rove made sure to take a few potshots at the Obama administration. Here are his words:
But let's unpack the rest of Mr. Rove's remarks. First off, he wants us to believe that Obama offered an unprompted opinion on the erroneously named "Ground Zero mosque". Excuse me? The folks at Fox News and other right-wing outlets were demanding that the President weigh in on the issue. What was surprising was that he waited so long (sadly, his wishy-washy remarks were not a surprise, given the tenor of his Presidency).
As for immigration reform, the passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 forced the administration to take action, given their opposition to it.
Which brings us to his last point. Mr. Rove would have us believe that Republicans have been focused in on the issue of the economy while ignoring the supposed noise emanating from the White House. But it was Republicans who passed SB 1070, and subsequently threw a collective fit when the Obama administration intervened. It is Republicans that are making a big deal over Park51. And while I'm not a big fan of "ObamaCare", Republicans spend more time demonizing it than they do suggesting viable alternatives.
I believe I have made it quite clear that I am far from Obama's biggest fan. But whenever Mr. Rove places himself back in the media spotlight, it's a reminder that things could be worse.
So what does The Architect make of the Republicans' push to take back Congress? Well, here is what he has to say:
Virtually everyone agrees that 20 of the 37 Senate seats on the ballot this year are in play. Twelve are now held by Democrats and eight by Republicans. The Republican-held seats appear increasingly safe. It's Democrats' seats that are at risk.Okay, that's reasonable enough, and seems to be in line with what most pundits are saying. But it's the beginning of this article where things are a little strange.
As for the lower chamber, the political handicappers Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg both now have 91 Democratic House seats and nine Republican House seats in play (albeit with slightly different names on each list). Politico.com sees 99 Democratic House seats up for grabs versus five Republican seats.
How many are likely to fall? The American Enterprise Institute's Henry Olson examined wave elections (in which one party gains a big number of seats) and found that the winning party picks up roughly 70% of the seats considered vulnerable. If that model holds, we're looking at a net Republican pickup of 64 to 69 seats in the House and roughly eight seats in the Senate.
I doubt Republican gains will be that big, at least in the House. Democratic candidates have a financial edge—they ended the third quarter with an average of 53% more cash on hand than their Republican opponents. While the GOP is closing the financial gap in the final weeks, money matters.
Before unveiling his prediction, Mr. Rove made sure to take a few potshots at the Obama administration. Here are his words:
The economy and jobs are the No. 1 issue in every poll. Yet Mr. Obama of late has talked about immigration reform and weighed in (unprompted) on the Ground Zero mosque. He devoted Labor Day to an ineffective Mideast peace initiative. He demeans large blocs of voters and now is ending his midterm pitch with attacks on nonexistent foreign campaign contributions and weird assertions that "the Empire is striking back."Well, fine, the Empire Stikes Back reference, delivered in a speech at Ohio State University, was pretty nonsensical. Here's a clip of that in case you missed it:
Meanwhile, Republicans have talked about little else than the economy—drawing attention to lackluster job growth, the failed stimulus, out-of-control spending, escalating deficits and the dangers of ObamaCare.
But let's unpack the rest of Mr. Rove's remarks. First off, he wants us to believe that Obama offered an unprompted opinion on the erroneously named "Ground Zero mosque". Excuse me? The folks at Fox News and other right-wing outlets were demanding that the President weigh in on the issue. What was surprising was that he waited so long (sadly, his wishy-washy remarks were not a surprise, given the tenor of his Presidency).
As for immigration reform, the passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 forced the administration to take action, given their opposition to it.
Which brings us to his last point. Mr. Rove would have us believe that Republicans have been focused in on the issue of the economy while ignoring the supposed noise emanating from the White House. But it was Republicans who passed SB 1070, and subsequently threw a collective fit when the Obama administration intervened. It is Republicans that are making a big deal over Park51. And while I'm not a big fan of "ObamaCare", Republicans spend more time demonizing it than they do suggesting viable alternatives.
I believe I have made it quite clear that I am far from Obama's biggest fan. But whenever Mr. Rove places himself back in the media spotlight, it's a reminder that things could be worse.
GE launches lame "Tag Your Green" campaign
I thought the commodification of the environmental movement was going out of style. Apparently, not at least if your GE, which has just launched something called the "Tag Your Green" campaign. Here is how Mashable describes it:
Pinwheel power! How come none of us thought of that before?
There's more fun to be had with this -- go take a look at GE's website for this campaign. It takes so long to load that you'll be reminded of the dial-up days of the early Web. And once it's done loading, it's reliant on so much processing power that your cooling fan will start to run wild. It's like looking at the world's worst MySpace page.
The problem here is this: what does such a campaign actually accomplish? Sure, GE is committed to making some token donations of clean water and green energy. But GE could donate this stuff today if it wanted to (how do you donate wind and solar power, anyway?) But the goal here, of course, if for GE to promote itself -- to show how much it supposedly cares about the environment. You get a few marketers to put together a slapdash social media campaign around this message, and you get Tag Your Green. The actual benefit to environmental causes is negligible at best.
I thought this kind of lame-brained corporate "activism" had faded away sometime during the 2008 financial crisis. Apparently not.
GE (together with BBDO, SocialVibe, SpeedShape and Howcast) has launched a new digital campaign to get you thinking about the environment with a photo project called Tag Your Green. GE hopes the project will inspire people to share new “green” ideas and connect with others by watching, commenting and uploading photos and videos on Flickr and YouTube.So how on Earth do you photograph wind? Well, there's a helpful YouTube video on how to make that happen:
GE will make a donation every time a user uploads a photo of wind, water, or light to Flickr. For every wind photo, 4.5 kilowatt hours of wind energy will be donated to Practical Action; every water photo will trigger a donation of 480 gallons to charity: water; and every light photo will yield 175 hours of solar power to d.light Lighting Oecusse Project.
GE’s goal is to raise 4.8 million gallons of clean water, 1.7 million hours of solar power and 45,000 kW hours of wind energy.
Pinwheel power! How come none of us thought of that before?
There's more fun to be had with this -- go take a look at GE's website for this campaign. It takes so long to load that you'll be reminded of the dial-up days of the early Web. And once it's done loading, it's reliant on so much processing power that your cooling fan will start to run wild. It's like looking at the world's worst MySpace page.
The problem here is this: what does such a campaign actually accomplish? Sure, GE is committed to making some token donations of clean water and green energy. But GE could donate this stuff today if it wanted to (how do you donate wind and solar power, anyway?) But the goal here, of course, if for GE to promote itself -- to show how much it supposedly cares about the environment. You get a few marketers to put together a slapdash social media campaign around this message, and you get Tag Your Green. The actual benefit to environmental causes is negligible at best.
I thought this kind of lame-brained corporate "activism" had faded away sometime during the 2008 financial crisis. Apparently not.
How Headlines can Mislead -- MSNBC and Afghanistan
MSNBC.com put up a article today with the sunny headline "'We broke their neck': Coalition routs Taliban". Sounds like fantastic news coming out of Afghanistan, right? But then the article starts out by stating the following:
Why can't the American media be more honest about the prosecution of the country's wars? They paint black and white pictures where shades of gray are required.
Coalition forces are routing the Taliban in Kandahar province, forcing its fighters to abandon bases they've held for years, Afghan officials say.And, it turns out, that the statement included in the headline did not come from a military official, but from an Afghan police chief:
Ahmed Wali Karzai, half-brother of Afghan president Hamid Karzai, told The Associated Press late Wednesday that he believed most of the insurgents had left before NATO and Afghan forces began an operation to wrest control of the province in July.
"We broke their neck," Hajji Niaz Muhammad, the police chief in the Arghandab District, told the Times. "There is no doubt they are very weak in this area now."Compare this to the much more muted words of a British commander of the NATO forces operating in the country:
"We now have the initiative. We have created momentum," Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, the British commander of the NATO coalition forces in southern Afghanistan who has overseen the Kandahar operation for the last year, told the newspaper. "It is everything put together in terms of the effort that has gone in over the last 18 months and it is undoubtedly having an impact."Trusting the hyperbolic statements made by Afghan officials is foolish enough -- incorporating such a statement into a headline to create an overly optimistic impression of the war is dangerously deceitful. It creates a false impression of overt success when the truth is far more nuanced. The article even goes on to make this very observation:
However, the coalition's experience in the former Taliban stronghold of Marjah offers a cautionary tale.The impossibility of stabilizing the situation is Marjah is the very reason that a more aggressive offensive was not launched in Kandahar in the first place. But now we're supposed to believe that everything is going swimmingly.
The southern Afghan town was seized from the Taliban eight months ago, but coalition forces are still trying to clear the town.
Years of Taliban control may have ended in Marjah, but the Taliban never left — they simply went underground, blending in among civilians, taking advantage of the region's terrain of agricultural fields and irrigation trenches to stage daily ambushes of American patrols.
The Marines have found bloody clothes and spent bullet casings and bombs meant to kill them. They've heard bullets flying overhead and seen muzzle flashes in tree lines. But finding insurgents is another story altogether.
Why can't the American media be more honest about the prosecution of the country's wars? They paint black and white pictures where shades of gray are required.
Obama and the trust issue
An article on MSNBC.com today (click here) suggests that the Obama administration has been exaggerating the job creation figures related to the $787 stimulus bill it helped push through Congress in February of 2009:
But here's the problem: those millions of new voters who brought Obama to office, not to mention his other supporters, believed that he was not your average politician. They thought that their man was honest and principled and had the country's interests at heart, not his own. And every time that myth gets punctured, even just a little bit, these voters turn away from him in droves. Witness the extreme lack of enthusiasm among Democratic voters in the days leading up to the November midterm elections.
Obama, his supporters might now say, could not control what voters thought of him. It's not his fault that he's not the messiah they expected. The problem with this argument is that Obama hardly did anything to dissuade voters from thinking this way when he was on the campaign trail. His main rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, was presented as a cynical pragmatist, willing to compromise her own values to stay in power. Obama built his reputation in contrast to this perception.
Moreover, Obama has largely blundered when it comes to explaining his actions in office. Compromise comes with the territory in Washington. If Obama were honest about the difficult choices he has had to make to get things done, his supporters probably would have understood the position he was in. Instead, Obama has exaggerated his accomplishments and has taken to demonizing the Republicans as an excuse for certain policy failures. Both strategies are distasteful.
Obama now looks like just another politician massaging the message in order to stay in office. And that's not what his supporters expected.
The Obama administration is crediting its anti-recession stimulus plan with creating up to 50,000 jobs on dozens of wind farms, even though many of those wind farms were built before the stimulus money began to flow or even before President Barack Obama was inaugurated.Staunch Obama defenders will dismiss such revelations. They might point to the larger deceits of the Bush administration. They might say that, despite everything, Obama is among the most honest and trustworthy Presidents in modern U.S. history. Or something like that.
Out of 70 major wind farms that received the $4.4 billion in federal energy grants through the stimulus program, public records show that 11, which received a total of $600 million, erected their wind towers during the Bush administration. And a total of 19 wind farms, which received $1.3 billion, were built before any of the stimulus money was distributed.
Yet all the jobs at these wind farms are counted in the administration's figures for jobs created by the stimulus.
In testimony to Congress earlier this year, the Department of Energy's senior adviser on the stimulus plan, Matt Rogers, touted the wind farm program for creating as many as 50,000 jobs.
But here's the problem: those millions of new voters who brought Obama to office, not to mention his other supporters, believed that he was not your average politician. They thought that their man was honest and principled and had the country's interests at heart, not his own. And every time that myth gets punctured, even just a little bit, these voters turn away from him in droves. Witness the extreme lack of enthusiasm among Democratic voters in the days leading up to the November midterm elections.
Obama, his supporters might now say, could not control what voters thought of him. It's not his fault that he's not the messiah they expected. The problem with this argument is that Obama hardly did anything to dissuade voters from thinking this way when he was on the campaign trail. His main rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, was presented as a cynical pragmatist, willing to compromise her own values to stay in power. Obama built his reputation in contrast to this perception.
Moreover, Obama has largely blundered when it comes to explaining his actions in office. Compromise comes with the territory in Washington. If Obama were honest about the difficult choices he has had to make to get things done, his supporters probably would have understood the position he was in. Instead, Obama has exaggerated his accomplishments and has taken to demonizing the Republicans as an excuse for certain policy failures. Both strategies are distasteful.
Obama now looks like just another politician massaging the message in order to stay in office. And that's not what his supporters expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
