Thursday November 19, 2009
Thursday November 19, 2009
In defense of Sarah Palin
No, not really. But I did find this Media Matters takedown of the sexism of Newsweek's cover story of Palin quite compelling.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don't have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek's November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo -- "How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?" -- presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, "Maria," in which nuns fret about "how" to "solve a problem like Maria," a "girl" who "climbs trees" and whose "dress has a tear."
Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin's exercise habits.
Like her or not, Palin is a former governor and vice presidential candidate. She deserves the same respect every single one of her male counterparts receives when they are featured on the cover of the magazine. I must have missed the cover of Vice President Joe Biden in short shorts or of Mitt Romney in a bathing suit.
I have to say I was a little surprised to see this on Newsweek's cover this week (which disappeared before I read it-- Alex?!), but I didn't stop to think of sexist this is until reading the above post. Good points.
What is God telling Sarah Palin to do?
Love Sally Quin's snarky take on God's "plan" for Sarah Palin:
In her new book Sarah Palin writes that one summer at Bible Camp she "put my life in my creator's hands and trust Him as I sought my life's path." For Palin, this grand divine plan was "a natural progression." She writes. And later, "I don't believe in coincidences."
Which leads me to ask:What does she believe is God's plan for her? Does she have any free will or is everything preordained. Can she see something coming and change her mind despite God's plans for her?
Did God plan for her to become Governor of Alaska. If so, did God plan for her to step down. Did God plan for her to run for Vice President? If so why did she and McCain lose?
Did God plan for her to have a child with Down's Syndrome? If so why did she consider an abortion? Did God plan for her to have a huge wardrobe? Then why did she apologize for it?
Did God plan for her to do the Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews and be humiliated by them. Did God plan for her to allow herself to be forced, against her will to do those interviews? If so then why complain?
Did God plan for her daughter Bristol to get pregnant while she was a teenager? Why was she then not thrilled. Did God plan for Bristol to get engaged and then break up, only to be left a single mother, dropping out of school?
There's plenty more, but you get the point.
Wednesday November 18, 2009
KSM's trial in New York
Great post from Andrew Sullivan on why it is really important to have KSM's trial in New York. The Obama administration has definitely disappointed me in adopting too many of the Bush positions in the "war on terror," but he gets a lot of credit on this one. Sullivan:
But what an open civilian case will also do - and it's why a war criminal like John Yoo is so apoplectic - is reveal the extent to which the brutal torture of KSM was unnecessary, and led to the government's inability to prosecute him to the full extent of the law.
It will be a civic lesson to America and the world. It will show the evil of terrorism and the futility and danger of torture. It will be a way in which Cheney's torture regime can be revealed in all its grotesque excess at the same time as KSM's vile religious extremism is exposed for its murderous nihilism. That all this will take place in New York - close to where the mass murder took place - is a particularly smart touch.
This will, then, be a Nuremberg-style event - because it will pit Qaeda barbarism against the cooling, calm and resolute nature of real Western justice in the clear light of history. But it does one more critical thing. It reveals a new confidence in ourselves and the Western way of life...
When you listen to the Fox News right speak about this, they reveal amazing levels of fear. They have been truly spooked by these men with long beards and chilling eyes. They are so scared of them they are willing to drop any and all legal principles that the West has historically used with respect to mass murderers. Their fear brought them to institute torture, and to engage in mass brutality against prisoners of war in every theater of combat in a manner that will tragically taint the honor of the US military for a very long time. It led them to establish Gitmo, to create for the world a reverse symbol of the Statue of Liberty, and imprint it on the minds and in the consciences of an entire generation of human beings, whose view of America will never be the same.
I think Sullivan gets that quite right-- Fox News Republicans are simply fearful (dare I say cowards?). On a more practical level, Dahlia Lithwick simply eviscerates all the arguments for the silly and scared people who think this is a bad idea.
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 18 2009, 12:03:40 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]
Tuesday November 17, 2009
Who likes Sarah Palin?
So, Sarah Palin has been all over the news and blogosphere with the roll-out of her new book, Going Rogue-- sure to be intellectually stimulating reading. Over at TNR, Michelle Cottle had a nice gender-based explanation on Palin's support:
Scanning the weekend chit-chatter about the ex-gov, I noticed that the Note pulled this observation from PBS's Gwenn Ifill:
"You cannot underestimate the degree that women will be drawn to her story."
Maybe. But, as last year's polls showed, it's not as though chicks much like Palin...
Quite the contrary: Palin (as I've noted before) is a national political phenom in large part because she is a certain type of man's fantasy of a go-getter gal: Sassy, pretty, and slightly flirtatious, with a professed love of firearms and sports and a distaste for those icky ol' traditional chick issues that feminists so tiresomely gripe about. (You know, reproductive rights, child care, family leave, comprehensive health care, equal pay, etc.)
I've actually been running models of support for Sarah Palin with the 2008 NES data. Short version: no gender-based differences at all in liking for Palin-- on a 0-100 scale, males average 51.54, females 51.15. Remarkably similar and nowhere near statistical significance. Among Democrats and Independents, there are no gender differences in Palin support. As much as I like Cottle's theory, though, it seems to be wrong. Among Republicans, men rate Palin about 69, significantly lower than where Republican women put her at 73. In an OLS model of Palin support, factors which increase support for Palin at a statistically significant level are: being married, being from the South, being white, having less education, being more religious, and, of course, being Republican.
Monday November 16, 2009
Fuel economy vs. horsepower
I read something about this years ago and always find reason to talk about it in my public policy class, but haven't actually been able to find good data on this, so I was very happy to see this post from Yglesias:
There are two things you can do with a more efficient automobile engine. One is build a vehicle that gets more miles per gallon. The other is build a vehicle that moves more pounds of steel. And Christopher Knittle points out that we’ve largely been doing the latter:
From 1980 to 2004 the fuel economy of U.S. vehicles has remained stagnant despite apparent technological advances. The average fuel economy of the U.S. new passenger automobile fleet increased by less than 6.5 percent, while the average horsepower of new passenger cars increased by 80 percent, and their average curb weight increased by 12 percent. For light duty trucks, average horsepower has increased by 99 percent and average weight increased by 26 percent over this period. But there’s more to this story: in 1980, light truck sales were roughly 20 percent of total passenger vehicles sales — in 2004, they were over 51 percent.
In Automobiles on Steroids: Product Attribute Trade-Offs and Technological Progress in the Automobile Sector (NBER Working Paper No. 15162), Christopher Knittel analyzes the technological progress that has occurred since 1980 and the trade-offs that manufacturers and consumers face when choosing between fuel economy, weight, and engine power characteristics. His results suggest that if weight, horsepower, and torque were held at their 1980 levels, fuel economy for both passenger cars and light trucks could have increased by nearly 50 percent from 1980 to 2006. Instead, fuel economy actually increased by only 15 percent.
Of course, this is what consumers wanted and that's what they got. Better policies, whether gas taxes or emissions standards would have seen that improvement in efficiency go towards better mileage. Speaking of inefficiency, most cars simply have way more power than they need now, and are therefore quite inefficient in the use of fuel. Maybe its because my first car was a K-Car, but I'm plenty happy with the 116 horses in my Toyota Corolla and rarely feel that I need more. Of course I do enjoy those extra horses I've experienced in others' cars, but mostly I'm happy with my great mpg. I also think the amount of people pouring money down the drain on full-sized trucks is ridiculous. We've got neighbors with a Ford F-250 or 350 and when that thing idles in the driveway it sounds like a UPS truck, but I've never seen them haul anything other than their two kids. I would say, to each his own, but all of us pay the externalities of them having such an amazingly inefficient vehicle for their needs.
Friday November 13, 2009
Catholic Church and gay marriage in DC
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 13 2009, 03:46:49 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [1]
Why is the Catholic Church trying so hard to drive me away. The latest:
Short version: we don't like you being nice to gay people so we're going to stop help you address the needs of the city's troubled and impoverished citizens. You know, I really don't think it's that hard to figure out what Jesus would have to say about that.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 13 2009, 03:46:49 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [1]
Tuesday November 10, 2009
I read books
I've updated my book review page here. If you've been keeping up with it, everything down to The Alchemist is a new review. The best two books I've added I basically read back-to-back with a failed novel in the middle. The God of War by Marisa Silver and The Black Tower by Louis Bayard are both terrific and highly recommended.
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 10 2009, 09:43:54 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]
Monday November 09, 2009
Catholic Church and health care reform
I certainly get that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church wants the health care reform bill to subsidize abortions as little as possible. Fair point. What is beyond ridiculous is that based on this "pro-life" opposition they are willing to kill the whole effort that, no matter the flaws, will bring health insurance to millions more Americans and thus indisputably save lives. Actually, I bet a little number crunching would likely find that extending health insurance saves far more lives than subsidizing insurance for the working poor leads to abortions. Even with coverage, most people do not seem to want to put an abortion on their health insurance. I find this infuriating:
Instead of staying neutral or remaining quiet about their concerns, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a grassroots campaign to oppose health reform, sending out bulletin inserts and fliers to every diocese in the country and urging priests to speak out from the pulpit last Sunday. In addition, every bishop was urged to contact the congressional members in their diocese and insist that they vote against health reform.
It's almost as if they Catholic Church has entirely turned its back on its history of concern for social justice and is becoming little more than an arm of the Republican party. And now that they've gotten their way are they going to fight to ensure that million more Americans will have health insurance? No! From Yglesias:
Even if no House Republicans could be persuaded to vote “yes” then surely single-issue anti-abortion activists will support it, right? Wrong! With the exception of Democrats for Life, pro-life organizations are praising Stupak but denouncing the bill anyway, citing imaginary provisions to euthanize seniors. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops sent out a press release urging passage of the Stupak amendment, but no release urging passage of the amended bill.
Pathetic. Maybe it's time for me to join one of those renegade Episcopal churches the Catholic church wants to suck up.
What "Conservatives" believe
So, after a recent Gallup poll, Charles Krauthammer (I've not enough time to debunk all the fallacies and misinterpretions in the column) and some other not particularly bright individuals have been crowing about what a conservative country this is because on the recent poll, self-identified conservatives outnumbered moderates and liberals 40 to 36 to 20. The problem with using these data to conclude that America is a conservative country is the fact that most people have almost no idea what it actually means to be conservative (or liberal, but especially conservative). All they know is that they are a white Southern man, so they must be conservative, or they hate socialism, or that big government is bad, or something equally nebulous. A solid plurality of "conservatives" actually support increasing spending on social security and on public schools and keeping welfare spending the same or increasing it. Not exactly the shrinking of government Krauthammer and all the right-wing pundits would have you believe. The tea-party morons are a passionate, but truly small fringe of American politics. Anyway, I ran some numbers using 2008 NES data to further make this point. Among those who self identify as conservatives, the following:
- 45% favor increasing SS spending; 38% keep the same
- 47% favor increasing spending for schools and 35% favor keeping it the same
- 28% favor increasing spending for "welfare" and 35% support keeping it the same
- 26% favor increasing spending for health care and 20% for keeping it the same
- 27% favor increasing spending for "government spending and services" and 25% for keeping it the same
- 23% support abortion as "always a woman's choice" compared to 18% saying it should never be legal
- 18% support gay marriage and another 34% support civil unions
Not exactly right-wing ideologues, eh? Heck, even just favoring the status quo is clearly contravenes contemporary elite conservative ideology, but not only do most "ordinary" conservatives support that, but many seems quite ready to "expand government" when it gets down to specific issues. Of course, one explanation could be that there's a lot of measurement error going on here and if we looked at liberals, we'd see plenty of them taking "conservative" positions. Alas, not so... Among liberals, 15% favor cuts to social security spending, 10% favor cuts to public schools, and 7% favor less government services and spending. Not at all the opposite of the conservative numbers above. My own theory (literally, I've got a PS paper on it) is for very many "conservatives" this is largely a social identity largely devoid of much genuine ideological content, as opposed to liberals, who are more likely to actually hold liberal beliefs. Take-home point: any time anybody tells you how conservative this country is based on all these self-proclaimed "conservatives," don't believe them.
Sunday November 08, 2009
Health care reform vote
I actually flipped away from Saturday night football to see the historic 218th vote cast to pass health care reform in the House. I have to admit, to being quite disappointed that it could muster 220 despite the fact that there are 258 Democrats in the House. I'd like to think that some of the 39 Democrat "no" votes would have voted for it if they knew it was actually going to prevent meaningful reform. Anyway, the NY Times has a really nice chart today which shows quite clearly where those no votes came from. For starters, 31 of the 39 came from districts that McCain won. 14 of the 39 were Freshman, overwhelmingly from districts that barely voted for Obama or went for McCain. In short, 35 of the 39 were in McCain districts, first term members, or both. Of course, if would still be nice if these Dems stepped up and did the right thing. Especially someone like NC's Larry Kissel, who is actually in a swing district carried by Obama and won with lot's of DCCC money. Anyway, all these defections are a shame, but I suppose if we get the same 220 for the final bill, it's all good.
Thursday November 05, 2009
Brief updates
When I wrote my angry rant yesterday, I had been hoping that Slate's Dahlia Lithwick would have written something about the case involving prosecutors and absolute immunity. Now she has. I'll just give you her takeaway line:
The question for the court today is whether it is ultimately more worried about chilling prosecutors who want to introduce possibly fabricated evidence or giving them good reason—and the absolute freedom—to do so.
Meanwhile, also in Slate, Tim Noah takes up the issue of pro-life House Democrats trying to derail health reform. I like this part:
Granted, money is fungible. Federal money that a private health insurance plan doesn't spend on abortions frees up nonfederal money that it does. But as Time's Amy Sullivan recently noted, not even Focus on Family meets Stupak's exacting standard. Principal, the health insurer for the Christian-right group's employees, covers abortions. "Even if the specific plan Focus uses for its employees doesn't include abortion coverage—and I'm assuming it doesn't—the organization and its employees still pay premiums to a company that funds abortions," Sullivan wrote. "If health reform proposals have a fungibility problem, then Focus does as well."
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 05 2009, 11:16:09 AM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]
Stimulate US
Paul Krugman has been making the case (quite effectively, in my opinion) for some time that we need more economic stimulus. In Salon, Robert Reich has a nice column discussing the political imperative of this on the Blue Dogs, who are always whining about budget deficits in totally nonsensical ways (of course, all else being equal you'd prefer a deficit to a surplus, but right now, all else is definitely not equal). It is their own re-elections most imperiled by a lack of a stimulus. Only question is if they are smart enough to realize that (I suspect not). Anyway, Reich nicely lays out the case:
Let's be clear about this. The national rate of unemployment will almost surely hit 10 percent; we'll know Friday whether it already has. This is more a psychological and political threshold than an economic one (it doesn't include everyone who's too discouraged to look for work, or working part time who'd rather be working full time, or working fewer hours in an ostensible full-time job, or otherwise fully employed but being paid less; the Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll survey, also due Friday, provides a more accurate picture). But it nonetheless represents a degree of hardship this country hasn't seen in decades.
Public approval of Obama’s handling of the economy has slipped to 46 percent in an Oct. 30-Nov. 1 CNN poll, from 59 percent in March. Remember, Obama was elected in part because the public didn't have confidence in McCain's ability to manage the economy. In exit polls last November, almost two-thirds of voters listed the economy as the nation's top issue. If the job numbers don't start moving in the right direction, not only will Obama's poll ratings continue to drop but congressional Dems will all be in trouble.
That should be Obama's selling point to the Blue Dogs. He should tell them the economy needs a bigger stimulus in order to show improved job numbers by the mid-term elections. And he should make sure they understand that they're more politically endangered next November if the the job numbers aren't moving in the right direction by then than if they vote for a larger stimulus now.
That's the case. Let's see if Obama makes it and the Blue Dogs listen.
Wednesday November 04, 2009
What the hell kind of country do we live in?!!
Apparently one in which government officials can torture totally innocent people with impunity if they think the person might be a terrorist and one in which prosecutors are granted complete immunity to frame someone for murder. Hyperbole? Sadly, no-- just today's news. Truly, truly depressing. Each of these totally deserves their own post, but I thought I'd combine because it truly says something about the sad state of our democracy.
First, the torture bit. The facts, courtesy of Glenn Greenwald:
Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent. A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal's McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he's 17 years old. In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was "rendered" -- despite his pleas that he would be tortured -- to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured. He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured. Everyone acknowledges that Arar was never involved with Terrorism and was guilty of nothing...
In January, 2007, the Canadian Prime Minister publicly apologized to Arar for the role Canada played in these events, and the Canadian government paid him $9 million in compensation. That was preceded by a full investigation by Canadian authorities and the public disclosure of a detailed report which concluded "categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent. A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal's McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he's 17 years old. In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was "rendered" -- despite his pleas that he would be tortured -- to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured. He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured. Everyone acknowledges that Arar was never involved with Terrorism and was guilty of nothing...
In January, 2007, the Canadian Prime Minister publicly apologized to Arar for the role Canada played in these events, and the Canadian government paid him $9 million in compensation. That was preceded by a full investigation by Canadian authorities and the public disclosure of a detailed report which concluded "categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense...
So, what did the American 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decide? Sorry, despite the fact that Canada published two phone books worth of material on this case, Arar could not sue the U.S Government in order to protect "state secrets." Sorry, it is no secret how craven and dismissive of liberty our government has become. Like the constitutional scholar he is, Greenwald sums it up brilliantly:
In other words, government officials are free to do anything they want in the national security context -- even violate the law and purposely cause someone to be tortured -- and courts should honor and defer to their actions by refusing to scrutinize them. (emphasis mine)
Reflecting the type of people who fill our judiciary, the judges in the majority also invented the most morally depraved bureaucratic requirements for Arar to proceed with his case and then claimed he had failed to meet them. Arar did not, for instance, have the names of the individuals who detained and abused him at JFK, which the majority said he must have. As Judge Sack in dissent said of that requirement: it "means government miscreants may avoid [] liability altogether through the simple expedient of wearing hoods while inflicting injury" (p. 27; emphasis added).
If you are not disgusted, you don't deserve your rights. On a similarly, though not quite as depressing note, the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in a case in which prosecutors knowingly framed two innocent men and sent them to jail for life, but they argue, and the Obama administration joins them, that prosecutors have absolute immunity in such matters. Hey, maybe we just need to let prosecutors loose on terrorists. They can waterboard them, threaten family members, all sorts of good stuff. That would surely bring in lots of credible and valuable confessions! Anyway, NPR had a a agreat story on the matter today. You can listen or read it at the link. Please do. Really.
The bright side on this one, is that maybe, just maybe, the US Supreme Court will rule that prosecutors are not actually a law unto themselves. I'm not holding my breath on that, though. Sigh.
Trenchant election analysis
One of my former colleagues and current facebook friends asked for my "trenchant election analysis." Here goes...
1) There's too damn much election analysis going on! We are talking about governor's races in 2 states. Yes, there are some suggestive ideas from this, but to draw broad, meaningful conclusions is folly. That said...
2) Bad time to be an incumbent, especially a Democratic one. Let's face it, the economy is still pretty weak and people have not seen the Democrats do all that much for them (most people don't really appreciate that we narrowly escaped a genuine economic catastrophe). Corzine was a really unpopular incumbent in a bad economy-- this is no great Republican victory.
3) McDonnell won Virginia handily by running as a can-do pragmatic moderate Republican. His record suggests he is, in fact, a fire-breathing, social issues conservative. I didn't follow the election enough to see how he pulled that off successfully, but hey, nice work. The most interesting commentary I read on the VA race was TNR's Jason Zengerle who suggested that the rural VA Deeds was never a comfortable fit for Northern Virginians and Dems win Virginia state-wide races by running up huge margins in NoVa. No matter how much gun-loving, good ol' boy Deeds was, he was never going to pick up a ton of Dem votes south of Fredericksburg and he didn't play particularly well where the Dem votes are.
4) Republicans are angry and energized. Democrats are complacent. No surprise that Republicans turned out in dramatically better numbers. Republicans should also fare better in 2010 as many of the 2008 Obama supporters remain home, but we should not make too much out of this year, because, ultimately, it all depends on...
5) It's the economy stupid. What yesterday's elections tell us is that if the economy is in roughly the same shape in a year, the Democrats are in for a world of hurt. Of course, there's more reason than not to expect it to be substantially better. Regardless, what happens in 2010 will be much more reflective of the economy next Fall than any political undercurrents that the 2009 VA and NJ governor's races reveal.
6) Nate Silver takes a nice statistical approach to it all.
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 04 2009, 03:56:34 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [1]
| Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Links | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Via TPM:
In answer to my title, I think the answer is no. There's answers to poll questions and what people actually believe. This is a case where I think there's a real difference. I think the Republicans are registering their (misplaced) antipathy towards ACORN rather than a genuine belief that the election was stolen. I suspect if you dug down further with more questions, you'd find this to be the case. Nice poll result to embarrass Republicans, but I don't think it really tells us anything beyond confirming how problematic opinion polls can be.
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 19 2009, 03:44:47 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]