According to a report on NPR this morning, Democrats believe that the close outcome of the race vindicates their decision to ignore the South, the West, and rural areas in general.
Hello? McFly?? YOU LOST AGAIN! With one of the strongest economies of the last 50 years, the Democrats still managed to lose in 2000. With one of the weakest economies over the same time period, the Republicans managed not only to retain power, but to strengthen their hold (see The Day After...). Clearly, it is NOT the economy, stupid!
According to exit polls (which clearly underestimated Republican support), about 22% of voters felt that "moral values" were the most important issue of this campaign. Not the economy. Not the war in Iraq. Not terrorism. Moral values. This is the driving force behind the overwhelming passage of gay marriage/civil union bans in 11 states.
If the Democrats are to ever regain power, they must find a way to appeal to these voters.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
"Look out, Jon Stewart ..."
I have watched the Daily Show regularly since way back. I remember the days when Craig Kilbourne would "quiz" his guests with 5 questions. When Kilbourne left the show for late-night broadcast TV, I wondered who could possibly continue the show. And I will admit, at first I doubted that Jon Stewart was the right person.
But he has done amazing things with the Daily Show, turning it into what is certainly the best fake news show on television, and living up to their old slogan - "When news breaks - we fix it!" Whether it was small-town politics, such as the mayor who skipped a town hall meeting to go to a Cher concert, or the sometimes insightful, sometimes hilarious interviews with all 9 (?) Democratic candidates in early 2004, Jon Stewart has certainly exceeded anyone's expectations.
So why does USA Today say that Jon Stewart has gone too far, has become the very thing he criticizes? They argue that Stewart has staked a position as a media critic, and has now become a "media darling" - an impossible duopoly to maintain.
But he has done amazing things with the Daily Show, turning it into what is certainly the best fake news show on television, and living up to their old slogan - "When news breaks - we fix it!" Whether it was small-town politics, such as the mayor who skipped a town hall meeting to go to a Cher concert, or the sometimes insightful, sometimes hilarious interviews with all 9 (?) Democratic candidates in early 2004, Jon Stewart has certainly exceeded anyone's expectations.
So why does USA Today say that Jon Stewart has gone too far, has become the very thing he criticizes? They argue that Stewart has staked a position as a media critic, and has now become a "media darling" - an impossible duopoly to maintain.
If the Tables Were Turned....
The mid-day headlines blare, "Kerry calls Bush to concede."
According to CNN, a Kerry adviser said the campaign had concluded that the too-close-to-call battleground state of Ohio was not going to come through for the Democrats. The adviser said there was no way to gain votes on Bush without an "exhaustive fight," something that would have "further divided this country."
If the tables were turned, what would Bush have done?
Four years' experience suggests that he would have fought with every ounce of strength he could muster, with every penny he could raise, regardless of the divisive effect on the nation. Four years' experience suggests that if the tables were turned, Bush would seek another "judicial election," or any other means to serve his goal.
There is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." For four years Americans have been able to argue that they had been fooled, or that Bush had been foisted upon them by the Supreme Court. Today I begin to wonder if we as Americans deserve everything that this administration serves us. Shame on us all.
According to CNN, a Kerry adviser said the campaign had concluded that the too-close-to-call battleground state of Ohio was not going to come through for the Democrats. The adviser said there was no way to gain votes on Bush without an "exhaustive fight," something that would have "further divided this country."
If the tables were turned, what would Bush have done?
Four years' experience suggests that he would have fought with every ounce of strength he could muster, with every penny he could raise, regardless of the divisive effect on the nation. Four years' experience suggests that if the tables were turned, Bush would seek another "judicial election," or any other means to serve his goal.
There is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." For four years Americans have been able to argue that they had been fooled, or that Bush had been foisted upon them by the Supreme Court. Today I begin to wonder if we as Americans deserve everything that this administration serves us. Shame on us all.
The Day After
So here we are again, the day after election day, still waiting to find out who will be President of the US. But regardless of how the few remaining votes in Ohio (and hence the Electoral College) go, it is clear that President Bush has won the popular vote by more than 4,000,000 people. In the House of Representatives the Republicans increased their lead to a majority of approximately 30 seats. In the Senate the Republicans attained a solid 55 to 44 majority (with one independent), and defeated Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Of eleven states with ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage, all eleven passed. Republicans held 28 governor's mansions and Democrats 22, and there seems to be no change in this balance.
The few bright spots for Democrats include Barack Obama's landslide victory over Alan Keyes in Illinois and Ken Salazar's defeat of beer magnate Pete Coors. In the strongly Republican state of Alaska, Democrat Tony Knowles made a strong showing against incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski but lost by 4% despite gaining traction with charges of nepotism (Murkowski was appointed to the Senate by the Governor of Alaska - her father).
So now the Republicans hold the Senate, the House of Representatives, a majority of Governors, a majority of state houses, and probably the Presidency. A majority of Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican administrations. Even in many states won by Democrats, their margin of victory was razor thin. The question now is clearly where do the Democrats go from here. They appear to be a party in disarry, with few leaders left and little sense of direction.
A cursory look at maps of the 2004 and 2000 elections will show that the parties seem to have become more sectional, with the Democrats drawing support from the Northeast (New Englant), Midwest (Rust Belt), and Pacific coast, and Republican support coming from the South and West. If this sectional division continues, demographic trends strongly favor the Republican party. Also, Republicans seem to have made much more of an effort to woo Hispanic voters, another demographic in their favor.
In short, although the close popular votes of the last two presidential elections may not reflect it, the Democratic Party runs the very serious risk today of becoming marginalized. We may be headed for a (brief) period of one-party rule, as was seen in the early- and mid-1800s, followed by the growth of a new party out of the ashes of today's Democratic Party.
The few bright spots for Democrats include Barack Obama's landslide victory over Alan Keyes in Illinois and Ken Salazar's defeat of beer magnate Pete Coors. In the strongly Republican state of Alaska, Democrat Tony Knowles made a strong showing against incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski but lost by 4% despite gaining traction with charges of nepotism (Murkowski was appointed to the Senate by the Governor of Alaska - her father).
So now the Republicans hold the Senate, the House of Representatives, a majority of Governors, a majority of state houses, and probably the Presidency. A majority of Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican administrations. Even in many states won by Democrats, their margin of victory was razor thin. The question now is clearly where do the Democrats go from here. They appear to be a party in disarry, with few leaders left and little sense of direction.
A cursory look at maps of the 2004 and 2000 elections will show that the parties seem to have become more sectional, with the Democrats drawing support from the Northeast (New Englant), Midwest (Rust Belt), and Pacific coast, and Republican support coming from the South and West. If this sectional division continues, demographic trends strongly favor the Republican party. Also, Republicans seem to have made much more of an effort to woo Hispanic voters, another demographic in their favor.
In short, although the close popular votes of the last two presidential elections may not reflect it, the Democratic Party runs the very serious risk today of becoming marginalized. We may be headed for a (brief) period of one-party rule, as was seen in the early- and mid-1800s, followed by the growth of a new party out of the ashes of today's Democratic Party.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
WHO Flu Summit
Partly because I'm getting tired of posting about politics (and we haven't even gotten to the recounts yet!)...
The World Health Organization will host representatives of vaccine manufacturers and of large nations (including the US) in Geneva, Switzerland on November 11 for a summit on the potential for an influenza pandemic.
The World Health Organization's influenza chief recently told the American Society for Microbiology that the world is closer than ever to a pandemic, a world-wide epidemic in which tens of millions of people die. Influenza normally kills about 36,000 people in the US and 1,000,000 worldwide every year, but a pandemic would push the global death toll into the tens of millions.
He said the bird flu is becoming established in Asia, and several worrisome human cases can't be linked directly to exposure to infected poultry. A pandemic is likely to develop when a flu strain changes so dramatically that people have little immunity from previous exposure.
Of course no discussion of influenza epidemics would be complete without mention of the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919, which killed between 20 and 40 million people, more than World War I. It is widely considered one of the most devastating epidemics in recorded world history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four years of the bubonic plague from 1347 to 1351. Known as "Spanish Flu" or "La Grippe," the influenza of 1918-1919 was a global disaster. The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%. The death rate for 15 to 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times higher in 1918 than in previous years - particularly striking because this is the age range normally least affected. For more information on that particular epidemic, visit this page.
Also in the related realm of epidemiology readings, I recommend Laurie Garrett's excellent book The Coming Plague, which includes a thorough discussion of the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic. The focus of the book is on how global climate change and weakened public health systems (see also Laurie Garrett's Betrayal of Trust) have left us more open than ever before to the possibility of a devastating epidemic. Her thesis has already been partially borne out by the continuing spread in the US of West Nile Viral Encephalitis and other previously tropical (or rare) diseases.
The World Health Organization will host representatives of vaccine manufacturers and of large nations (including the US) in Geneva, Switzerland on November 11 for a summit on the potential for an influenza pandemic.
The World Health Organization's influenza chief recently told the American Society for Microbiology that the world is closer than ever to a pandemic, a world-wide epidemic in which tens of millions of people die. Influenza normally kills about 36,000 people in the US and 1,000,000 worldwide every year, but a pandemic would push the global death toll into the tens of millions.
He said the bird flu is becoming established in Asia, and several worrisome human cases can't be linked directly to exposure to infected poultry. A pandemic is likely to develop when a flu strain changes so dramatically that people have little immunity from previous exposure.
Of course no discussion of influenza epidemics would be complete without mention of the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919, which killed between 20 and 40 million people, more than World War I. It is widely considered one of the most devastating epidemics in recorded world history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four years of the bubonic plague from 1347 to 1351. Known as "Spanish Flu" or "La Grippe," the influenza of 1918-1919 was a global disaster. The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%. The death rate for 15 to 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times higher in 1918 than in previous years - particularly striking because this is the age range normally least affected. For more information on that particular epidemic, visit this page.
Also in the related realm of epidemiology readings, I recommend Laurie Garrett's excellent book The Coming Plague, which includes a thorough discussion of the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic. The focus of the book is on how global climate change and weakened public health systems (see also Laurie Garrett's Betrayal of Trust) have left us more open than ever before to the possibility of a devastating epidemic. Her thesis has already been partially borne out by the continuing spread in the US of West Nile Viral Encephalitis and other previously tropical (or rare) diseases.
Osama bin Laden's True Strategy?
While most of the US is focused on what we hope will be the last day of the 2004 Presidential Campaign, al-Jazeera released the full transcript of Osama bin Laden's most recent video (aired Friday 10-29-2004).
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy," bin Laden said adding it was "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," each US$1 al-Qaida has spent on strikes has cost the United States US$1 million in economic fallout and military spending, including emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. "Every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said.
"As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers," bin Laden said, estimating the deficit at more than US$1 trillion. In reality, spending in the war against terror and other factors have resulted in an expected US$377 billion shortfall for 2003 - the highest deficit since World War II when inflation is factored out. The total US national debt is near the US$7.4 trillion statutory limit.
Bin Laden said that he and the mujahadeen in Afghanistan "bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."
Bin Laden claimed al-Qaida was winning its war with the United States, and that US defense contractors linked to Bush "like Halliburton and its kind" were also benefiting, while the losers were "the American people and their economy...Over 15,000 of our [Iraqi] people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than 1,000 of you have been killed and more than 10,000 injured ... all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business," bin Laden said.
The al-Qaida leader also accused Bush of ignoring advice from various quarters against invading Iraq, "but the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America."
If bin Laden's goal is to drive the US government into economic ruin, he has certainly gotten a good start to it.
He concluded, "I am Osama bin Laden, and I approved this message." (Not really, but it would have been damn funny if he had!)
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy," bin Laden said adding it was "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," each US$1 al-Qaida has spent on strikes has cost the United States US$1 million in economic fallout and military spending, including emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. "Every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said.
"As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers," bin Laden said, estimating the deficit at more than US$1 trillion. In reality, spending in the war against terror and other factors have resulted in an expected US$377 billion shortfall for 2003 - the highest deficit since World War II when inflation is factored out. The total US national debt is near the US$7.4 trillion statutory limit.
Bin Laden said that he and the mujahadeen in Afghanistan "bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."
Bin Laden claimed al-Qaida was winning its war with the United States, and that US defense contractors linked to Bush "like Halliburton and its kind" were also benefiting, while the losers were "the American people and their economy...Over 15,000 of our [Iraqi] people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than 1,000 of you have been killed and more than 10,000 injured ... all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business," bin Laden said.
The al-Qaida leader also accused Bush of ignoring advice from various quarters against invading Iraq, "but the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America."
If bin Laden's goal is to drive the US government into economic ruin, he has certainly gotten a good start to it.
He concluded, "I am Osama bin Laden, and I approved this message." (Not really, but it would have been damn funny if he had!)
Voting
In the spirit of Blog the Vote I thought I would put up my own little election story here.
I have voted in every possible election since I was eligible (because I have a summer birthday I began at age 17!) - that includes primary, school board, library, etc. I have never seen as many people show up to vote as I saw this morning. My wife and I showed up early this morning and were in line for about an hour. Our neighbors, who have the misfortune to have last names late in the alphabet, waited nearly two hours! Turnout in some counties in this area has been forecast near 80%.
Usually when we see long voting lines, we think of a brand new democracy, a country where people have only just won the right to vote. At home in the US we have become accustomed to much lower turnout. It was a very refreshing change, and for once, I didn't mind waiting in line.
I have voted in every possible election since I was eligible (because I have a summer birthday I began at age 17!) - that includes primary, school board, library, etc. I have never seen as many people show up to vote as I saw this morning. My wife and I showed up early this morning and were in line for about an hour. Our neighbors, who have the misfortune to have last names late in the alphabet, waited nearly two hours! Turnout in some counties in this area has been forecast near 80%.
Usually when we see long voting lines, we think of a brand new democracy, a country where people have only just won the right to vote. At home in the US we have become accustomed to much lower turnout. It was a very refreshing change, and for once, I didn't mind waiting in line.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Correlation Between Voting Method and Turnout?
A friend of mine who lives in College Park, Maryland was recently complaining about how his vote in the presidential election doesn't matter because Maryland always goes overwhelmingly for the Democrats. He was wondering if there was any research regarding a relationship between voting method (winner take all, proportional representation, instant runoff, etc.) and turnout.
I found a wealth of information on this subject at FairVote.org and I definitely recommend the site (which is non-partisan) to anyone interested in the subject.
I found a wealth of information on this subject at FairVote.org and I definitely recommend the site (which is non-partisan) to anyone interested in the subject.
Experiment in capitalism
I found a website today about a fellow who, as an experiment, was trying to turn $14 into $1000 in a year. He had a job, and plenty of money, but was just doing this as an experiment in capitalism. The goal was to do this without gambling (or otherwise incurring extremely high levels of risk), and with minimal work (since he already had a job).
I certainly find this intriguing. While it sounds impossible - a 7142% annual return - when you start considering the ways in which one might do this it really may be quite doable! What do you think?
I certainly find this intriguing. While it sounds impossible - a 7142% annual return - when you start considering the ways in which one might do this it really may be quite doable! What do you think?
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Presidential Market 2004!
Presidential Market 2004 is an online game -- a simulated futures market, but not using real money -- in which players buy and sell "shares" of the major 2004 presidential candidates. Finish on Election Day with the highest valued portfolio and win a trip to the inauguration in Washington, D.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)