Martin: Democrats need more than working-class whites

Originally Posted: May 9th, 2008

Roland Martin is great. Looking back at this debate, one should also note that the Republicans generally sweep the demographic in question anyway, so the point stressing their importance, while far from moot, is a fairly poor one. Where the bigger picture is concerned, the bigger puzzle in my view, will be how to get either group of alienated supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee in November after all of this divisiveness.

Commentary: Democrats need more than working-class whites
By Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor

"(CNN) -- Excuse me if a look of bewilderment crosses my face when a surrogate of Sen. Hillary Clinton's starts off on the "we need hard-working white workers to win in November" mantra.

Roland S. Martin contends the Democratic nominee will need a broad-based coalition to win in November.

The candidate herself has now made that notion the primary -- and latest argument -- to superdelegates to convince them she's the best person to beat Sen. John McCain in November.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she told USA Today.

The newspaper quoted her as saying that an Associated Press article showed how Sen. Barack Obama's support among "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Now, I know I'm not one of those voters she's talking about, but the reality is that hard-working white Americans alone will not put Clinton or Obama in the White House.

Neither will African-Americans alone or young voters, senior citizens, the college-educated, the "no-working" Americans, gays and lesbians, nonreligious voters, veterans, Hispanics, women, etc.

In fact, Democrats alone won't do it. You also must take a good portion of independents.

No Democrat can win the White House unless he or she is able to pull from all the various constituencies in the country, and it's downright silly for the Clinton campaign to assert that idea that hard-working white votes are the only ones that matter.

Sure, the Clinton camp will contend that's not what it's saying. But it sure sounds that way (and no, I don't agree with what's being said on blogs -- that this is playing the "race card").

Is Clinton suggesting that whites who voted for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire (where she beat him by around 8,000 votes), Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington state, Minnesota and so many other states were phantom voters? Were they not hard-working white voters? Were they only the "eggheads and African-Americans" whom Paul Begala referred to on CNN on election night?

Look, I get spin. And I get that Clinton must figure out some kind of argument that makes sense for the superdelegates to go her way and ignore Obama's lead among pledged delegates, the popular vote and states won. But when a Democratic candidate continues to ram home this notion that hard-working white Americans somehow are the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party, it's just not true.

Clinton wants to make the argument that her white working-class support in Ohio and Pennsylvania -- states the Democrats need to win in November -- shows she's the best choice.

But one major failure in Clinton's argument is the assumption that all the traditional Democratic constituencies will offer her broad support if she's the nominee. And considering her high negatives, she can't afford any erosion.

Obama could make the case that she has failed miserably in the primaries in garnering young and African-American voters, and without them, she loses.

Not only that, the Democratic Party has a chance to expand the map beyond the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democrats have a solid shot at winning Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Of those states, Obama won four of the seven, and he had narrow losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire.

Small states? Sure. Winnable? Absolutely. Their electoral votes can be as important as the big states.

If Democrats are serious about winning, they are going to have to put on ice this notion that white working-class voters or any other constituencies are the be-all and end-all in November.

Winning the White House is about building a true broad coalition. You should judge which candidate has been able to do so in the primaries. If it's Obama, he's the nominee. If it's Clinton, then she is.

Such a coalition should be on the mind of every superdelegate -- not the debate over which ethnic group reigns supreme at the ballot box.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University. You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer."

Here's a link to the original column: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/08/roland.martin/index.html

Lol. Once again, Mr. Martin gets it 100% right. Sure, we know all of this business about needing to merely win working-class whites is spin, but it's spin that has illegitimately worked it's way into the conventional wisdom; a talking point that has evolved through spin, into false conventional wisdom; bullshit masquerading as a fact because the public and the media fail to question it, whether it be deliberately, or through intellectual and/or moral laze.

Whatever you'd like to call it, the bottom line is that the candidate that is more "electable" is the one that can appeal not to one particular demographic, but a broad base of support, from both the more traditional Democratic Party electorate, and a very diverse cross section of new progressive voters (whether they be undecideds, Republicans, first time voters, or whatever). I wish people would stop calling them a "coalition" or "base", because it's not like they organize together to support candidate x or candidate y.

Once again, we see that the conventional wisdom fails us miserably. In case this argument isn't resonating with you yet, think back to 2004. Pundits and analysts pointed to record numbers of new, young voters turning out to justify predictions of a win for the left. Situation after situation, and election season after election season, we oversimplify the processes we witness in everyday life. Reflecting on an earlier note, even IF you DID believe the spin, that too many of these WBCWs will REFUSE to support Obama (which I maintain, is still insulting to said voters), the Dems definitely need broader support than simply any one demographic group.

Yet Another Hair-Brained Idea From Folks That Should Know Better

Originally Posted: May 6th, 2008

Talk about bad policy. I maintain that this idea is as bad as all of those "Lower Gas Prices" groups on Facebook. Misguided, wasteful, and nothing more than pandering to the masses.

Ugh. Gas tax-holiday? Seriously?

I'm pretty sure the conversation about whether or not to use this idea as a campaign tool, in both the McCain and Clinton campaigns went something like this:

Candidate: "Well okay, so a gas tax holiday won't actually work... But wouldn't it still be a good idea to float to make voters seem like we're sympathetic to their needs?"

Advisor: "Well yeah, the voters are too dumb to know that it won't actually work. If there's any opposition we'll just tell them that it's elitist to think that it won't, and that our projections show they'll save like, 70 bucks because of it. Besides, it'll never pass into law anyway, so we'll never actually find out that it indeed won't save anyone anything."

At least, I HOPE it went that way. Otherwise these people are just complete idiots. I'm not sure which scenario I'm less comfortable with. I believe Hilary Clinton's exact words were, ""I'm not going to put my lot in with economists", basically indicating either:

1) That she is not an economist, and she doesn't care what they think, or:
2) That she thinks that the economists are all wrong, or:
3) That she knows she's wrong, but still supporting a bullshit policy because it suits her political needs, or:
4) All or some of all or some configuration of, all of the above.

Whatever the case might be (I certainly am not going to profess to know the inner secrets of this sordid tale, but I'm guessing it's option number four), I'll say this: I AM an economist, and the idea is absolutely absurd.

Now I must admit, that yes, sometimes experts can appear to be elitist. (Like right now for example, when CNN runs a story about rats infesting O'Hare International Airport, and brings in 2 "experts with more than 15 years of extermination experience" to identify whether or not the furry little long-tailed long-eared critters captured on their undercover cameras are indeed rats, lol. Seriously? I need an expert to tell me what a rat looks like?) This however is not such a case.

If you've ever taken Econ 101, you know this is a bad idea. Quoting Greg Mankiw from the Washington Post on May 1st: "What you learn in Economics 101 is that if producers can't produce much more, when you cut the tax on that good the tax is kept... by the suppliers and is not passed on to consumers." I'm quoting the good man because he's spot on.

Assuming the supply of gas is inelastic relative to demand (i.e. it is difficult for producers to increase the quantity of gas supplied to the market), then when there is a tax, producers bear the burden. In simpler terms, when producers have little control over the quantity they can bring to market, it is harder for them to shift the cost of the tax to the consumer. Remove this tax, and the majority of the revenue that previously went to the government now goes to the producer.

That's the scenario that every economist subscribes to, and any student of economics should subscribe to, without exception. It is entirely unreasonable to believe that removing the tax would benefit consumers more than it would benefit producers. The estimates the Clinton campaign have come up with are wildly optimistic at best - $20 to $30 in savings per consumer is a far more neutral estimate, though I personally would go as low as $10.

Even worse however for the McCain and Clinton camps, is the idea that the supply inelasticity of gas may be perfect. Perfect inelasticity would be the case if producers had NO ability to increase the quantity of gas supplied to the market. Considering that refineries are producing to capacity as we approach the summer (somewhat daunting, since prices usually don't skyrocket quite this early), it is fairly unreasonable to assume that there will be any increase in supply over the time frame that this gas tax-holiday would be in effect. If this is the case, then relief to the consumer falls to ZERO. Yes, zero.

Even IF refineries are not producing to capacity, what's to stop producers from freezing the supply of gas where it is while the tax holiday is in effect, and hoarding the total tax relief revenue for themselves?? Absolutely nothing.

This talk of a gas tax-holiday is mindless babble. It's a ploy to get voters to think that their needs are being seen to compassionately.

Again, it's insulting. To think that voters are too dumb to consider expert opinion is insulting. To think that voters will ignore the media coverage saying as much is doubly insulting.

Worse than the insult to our collective intelligence however, is that it's simply BAD POLICY. Did I say bad? I meant ATROCIOUS. You have one candidate who has already confessed he knows nothing about economics, and another, who has now professed that she will not listen to economists.

It's a bad policy not only because it doesn't achieve what it sets out to (lowering the cost of gas for consumers), but also because it does exactly the OPPOSITE. It provides an incentive to producers to increase the supply of gas more slowly than demand is increasing through 1) their opportunity to hold on to what they no longer have to pay to the federal government, and 2) their expectation that if they squeeze the consumer enough, the government may drop the tax again in the future, having set the precedent earlier.

If you really want to relieve consumers from high gas prices in the short term, take all the money being spent on fuel for shipments to and for fuel for military actions in Iraq, and use it to a) set up a short term government funded fuel subsidy in the form of a debit card that can be used for fuel purchases, and b) start an advertising campaign showing people how they can minimize their fuel consumption.

Tax-holiday? Really? Bloody rubbish. I expect these kind of shenanigans from the likes of Rove and Company, but shame on you Hilary Clinton. I used to think you wouldn't actually say absolutely anything to get elected, but this changes my mind. It's about as great an idea as all of these hair brained calls to boycott gas from a particular company, or to not drive for a day. Oil is now $122 a barrel. The only way to reduce the cost of it is to USE LESS OF IT. If I hear anyone else expounding such filth again, I'll smack them with a trout.

"That's Insulting!"

Originally Posted: April 23rd, 2008

Another blog motivated by the Democratic primary races between Senators Clinton and Obama, challenging the conventional wisdom and spin being generated and perpetuated by spin.

Lol. If you're a Trini, you'll get the reference... If not; well it's still insulting. If I were an American, I must say, I'd be incredibly insulted by much of the media coverage, and Hilary Clinton's current spin on Barack Obama's electablity.

Hilary Clinton's current position is that she is more electable than Barack Obama. Her cited evidence for this, is that she's doing better in the larger states, primarily because she's "doing better with blue collar Democratic voters." (Insert the word "white" there, because it's what the polls actually show.) The media has followed this particular notion - this spin - and it's a strong thread. Anyone from the Times to the Post; CNN to Fox; even a range of international sources, have picked up on this thread. Their reasoning is that this will be the major argument in convincing super delegates to sway towards either candidate.

Why should Americans find this insulting? Any plausible analysis here has centered around one theme: A "disconnect with white working class voters", who Clinton is pulling in in superior numbers. Each candidate has put forth an almost identical policy platform. To say that Barack Obama is not connecting with these folks must therefore hinge on some aspect of campaign strategy, voter identity/disposition, or candidate image.

Please note carefully, that the proportion of white working class voters that Clinton has been pulling in has been almost IDENTICAL over the span of the Presidential Primary race. Since Obama's "bitter" comment, as evidenced from the numbers in Pennsylvania, there hasn't been much change in that distribution.

So why are all of these pundits, and why is the Clinton campaign, assuming that these white, blue collar workers (who will be referred to as WBCWs from here onwards - I refuse to call them "Lunch Bucket Democrats"), would either not vote at all, or vote for John McCain in a general election if Barack Obama were candidate? It is this so called "disconnect" that is being cited. Here's a further question:

Where is the evidence for this so called disconnect? As far as I can tell, there is none whatsoever, especially considering he did not experience a decline in his share of the WBCW vote in this most recent primary. How many unions have turned out in support of the man? How can anyone honestly say that he has no ability to connect with these people? This notion reeks of the Rubin's Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference. For you non-stats geeks out there, that's simply the fact that it is impossible to observe the causal effect on a single unit. To say that these WBCWs vote for Clinton because she connects BETTER with them is fair (A causes B); but to say that because they vote for her instead of him, they aren't connecting at ALL with Obama, not only makes no sense (it is unclear whether, because we know A causes B, that A also causes C, because we can't measure the causal effect on C through B; it must be measured separately if we are to ascertain its value).

Look at the numbers. 46% of WBCWs are still voting for Obama, meaning that 46% still like him better than Clinton. Clinton may be connecting better, but to say that the 54% of democratic WBCWs voting for Clinton instead of Obama would either dessert their party by not voting at all, or turn parties and vote Republican, carries a less than savory assumption.

The underlying assumption - no, I'll just come out and say it - insinuation here, is the WBCWs are not voting for Barack Obama because he is black. One can't claim it's the result of recent campaign developments, such as the "bitter" comment or an alleged elitist, as poll numbers (and you know how much I hate polls) have balanced out. One can't claim it's due to policies towards such workers, because both candidates' policies are too similar.

This is the assumption that I find insulting. The insinuation that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere that are vehemently racist and simply refuse to vote for a black candidate. No - even worse - that they vote for a white candidate instead, simply because of race. If I were a voter in one of these states, I would be insulted. Who's to say that these 54% are ALL voting for Clinton in this fashion - because they feel "disconnected" from Obama because he is black?

It's insulting. It might be true, but there's no way of knowing it. I'm sure there are a certain number of Democrats who are effectively voting against Obama by voting for Clinton because they are racists; but to say that all 54% of them in these states are is a gross underestimation of the character of that 54% of WBCWs. Very few people in the media are suggesting that perhaps this 54% aren't completely disconnected from the Obama campaign - most are assuming that they'd rather abandon their party than vote for Obama, by putting weight behind the Clinton campaign's argument that she is more electable in this fashion.

To make matters worse, it also insinuates that they're stupid. That they would vote for a candidate that doesn't represent their values, or that they would allow such a candidate to win by not turning up to vote at all, implies that they'd rather be bitter and suffer than support a candidate who does support their values, but doesn't share their background or skin color.

All the 54-46 distribution tells us, is that on that given day, Clinton would be guaranteed 54% of that particular pool, Obama 46%. We can't simply assume that eithers' supporters will not vote for the other, with any demographic. (The hypocrisy of people negatively criticizing Obama's "bitter" comment, while simultaneously insinuating that all of the same people are racists, is evident here, but let's not get me started on a new rant...) I'm reasonably sure that no one intends to refer to these folks as stupid racists, but that's what is effectively being doing through the aforementioned rhetoric.

Instead of swallowing the bullshit unquestioningly, the question the analysts, pundits, super delegates, and other inquisitive minds such as myself should be asking is, how do we estimate the number of Americans that would vote for either Barack Obama OR Hilary Clinton, within those key battleground states, using the data we have?

It's impossible to know exactly how many people will vote in a racially motivated fashion, especially since people tend lie to the pollsters when asked such sensitive questions; but it is possible to perhaps tease some new information out of proxy data ("Freakonomics" talks about an American Idol study that was used to test people's perceptions via their inclination to vote for or against certain participants based on race - something clever like that maybe).

I'll leave you with one last thought. If there really is a such a "disconnect" between Barack Obama and working class voters, why, when asked whether they felt each candidate connected with them, did they answer an almost identical 70% for both Clinton, and Obama? Do we really think so little of all of these people that we think that they wouldn't vote for Obama based on his race; or that matter, for Clinton based on her sex? If we do, then it really does say something quite daunting about the society we live in.

DUMB.

Originally Posted: April 9th, 2008

This might as well have been a stream on consciousness exercise, haha. Exactly what I was thinking while I watched the coverage.

What the hell is WRONG with people??

Who really wakes up in the morning and thinks to themselves: "You know what? I'm so strongly against human rights violations in China, that I'm gonna go beat up an Olympic torch bearer."

WTF man. Seriously. You're going to ASSAULT someone, to protest other people's human rights being violated? You're going to disenfranchise someone of their right to be free from harm (and political persecution) in order to make a case for the rights of Chinese people to be free from harm (and political persecution)?

WHAT IS THE POINT?!?

And then they have the audacity to wonder why they bring the cops out to spray you with a fire hose or pepper you with rubber bullets (which can actually kill you).

Why. Why? Because you're f*cking idiots that's why. Clearly these people have been sniffing too much glue to make reasonable decisions anymore. If you're assaulting Olympic torch bearers for any reason whatsoever, you're a dumbass that deserves to have dogs sicked on them. By all means, protest whatever you want, but as far as I'm concerned, the second you try to harm an innocent party, you deserve to have a cap or two popped in yer arse.

Tabhair póg dom, táim Éireannach!

Originally Posted: March 17th, 2008

This one pretty much speaks for itself. ;)

Okay, so I'm sure most of you celebrated St. Patrick's Day on SATURDAY... And sure, I went out on Saturday. Didn't wear my green, and didn't even end up at the bar for very long (haha, as Jorge can attest to) due to the congestion, crazy police raids, and crazy combination of Saturday & St. Patrick's Day celebrating... But I was out. HOWEVER, today is the day you should be celebrating, if any...

...unless we're talking about going to mass here. Then yeah. You should have been in church on Saturday. If you're Catholic, you probably realized that the Church moved the Feast Day from March 17th, to March 15, in order to accommodate "Holy Week" (the last week before Easter). I suppose this makes sense if you're a practicing Catholic, going to mass on both Saturday for the feast day and Holy Monday (today). One should also note that the decision to move the feast day was an entirely liturgical decision.

In Ireland, though the Catholic diocese all celebrated St. Patrick's Day on March 15th, secular and other celebrations (read: libations) have all remained unchanged, and will be held TODAY. The St. Patrick's Day parade in Dublin was today. People in Ireland had a work holiday, TODAY.

So why all this confusion? Well, there are 2 sides to St. Patrick's Day. The religious side, if you're a Catholic; and the celebration of national pride, if you're not. The holiday has become far more than a feast day over the years - so much so that there are even Orangemen from Ulster parading in the streets today.

I for one think it's nice that for once, people can celebrate the two sides separately; Church for mass on Saturday, Pub for pints on Monday, and back to work on Tuesday. Being the cynical agnostic and/or non-practicing-secular-Anglican (read non-practicing-secular-Episcopalian for all you Americans) that I am, I for one, will be celebrating with the rest of my countrymen TODAY.

*Raises his pint of Guinness* So here's to your health! Sláinte chugat!

St. Patrick's Day blessings upon you. Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig oraibh.

NAFTA In Ohio

Originally Posted: February 25th, 2008

The debate surrounding NAFTA has always provided interesting questions for economists. The discourse leading up to the Ohio primary however, provided me with a particularly succinct and interesting question: Was there a way to measure the jobs lost to NAFTA in Ohio? While not an absolutely precise measure, the answer was yes. Whether the loss of jobs was worth the overall economic gains of NAFTA is another question entirely, though in terms of settling the argument between Senators Obama and Clinton, that part was fairly irrelevant.

So it would seem that strong words are flying once more in the Democratic race for the Presidential nomination, and this time it's around NAFTA (and all manner of other things, though this seems to me to be the only worthy point of contention this week). It seems that once again, the conventional wisdom is prevailing - but don't buy it for a second.

NAFTA was largely a success. That is, it did what it was supposed to. The majority of economists agree on this, and it really isn't debatable. As paraphrased from Moss' article, "Economic Developments during NAFTA's First Decade", the main provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement were to eventually eliminate both tariff and non-tariff barriers to goods and services trade, to phase in free trade in agriculture, textiles, and automobiles, and to liberalize cross-border investment, all between Canada, the USA, and Mexico. Since going into effect on January 1st 1994, the vast majority of economists agree that the agreement had a small, though net positive effect for the United States, and a larger net positive effect for Mexico. (I neglect Canada here due to their prior free trade agreement with the US.)

All in all, returns to the U.S. from foreign direct investment in Mexico grew, and quantities of imports to and exports from the United States increased, as did tertiary sector jobs in the U.S., and secondary sector jobs in Mexico. Such benefits were the direct causal result of NAFTA.

What about unemployment? The problem for economists here is that isolating the other individual effects of NAFTA on the economy is a particularly tricky puzzle. Where unemployment is concerned, the typical rate in the U.S. is around 6%. Sure, unemployment fluctuated in both directions during the period of time that has elapsed since NAFTA was ratified - but who is to say how many of those jobs were lost or created due to NAFTA? Especially when one considers the range of other economic factors in play. The regular business cycle. The Mexican Peso Crisis. Supply shocks. The boom of the early to mid 1990's. I could go on.

Luckily, for those of us that are actually wondering, policy makers knew that NAFTA would bring significant change to the structure of the American economy. Many of NAFTA's proponents were right - jobs would be created as a result of increased capital for investment due to lower tariffs, etc. Many of NAFTA's detractors however, were also right. Lower skilled jobs, particularly in manufacturing, would be destroyed as capital holders took advantage of cheaper labor in Mexico and moved factories there. As a result, they created the NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance program (hereafter referred to as the NAFTA-TAA program).

The NAFTA-TAA program sought to provide assistance to workers "who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of trade with, or a shift in production to, Canada or Mexico", as well as both their upstream and downstream counterparts in industries with shared linkages. As a result, there is actually data that points to the number of jobs lost due to NAFTA. This data is not perfect - it is likely to understate the number of jobs lost, since fewer workers were aware of the programs existence. It is also likely to overstate the number of jobs lost, since not all workers will have lost their jobs. Perhaps these balance out - either way, NAFTA-TAA's certification process is the best available count of the number of workers displaced due to increased NAFTA exports.

So what do these numbers indicate? Approximately 3/4 of a million certifications were issued between NAFTA's ratification in 1994 and 2002. That's around 90,000 jobs lost a year, which, for the entire United States, is actually a fairly small number when compared to national unemployment. From this perspective, the Clinton's argument is fairly sound - NAFTA did little damage when it came to unemployment nationally, and in fact, the jobs created in the service industry are pointed to by many as part of the reason for the boom of the 90's.

Regionally however, the picture is very different. The majority of the manufacturing industry in the United States is densely concentrated by region, especially when one considers the concentration via migration of manufacturing infrastructure to the Midwest through the 80's, which persists even to this day. According to the American Manufacturing Association, 235,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industry in the state of Ohio since 2000. Since January 2001, the TAA program has certified 56,414 workers in Ohio alone. That's around 24% of the manufacturing jobs lost in Ohio that can be directly tied to NAFTA, and it's probably a low estimate. From this perspective, Obama's argument is solid. Ohio voters can certainly blame a significant portion of the unemployment in their state's manufacturing industry on NAFTA, and it's something Hilary Clinton should own up to and provide one of her much vaunted "solutions" to, if she's to be believed, rather than trying to call her opponent a liar.

So there's the beef. There are winners and losers in free trade. Get used to it. Sadly, Ohioans* got the shitty end of the stick on this one.

*More specifically, Ohio manufacturers.

Super Tuesday Rant

Originally Posted: February 5th, 2008

There's almost always a disclaimer on political polls which reads something like, "This is not a scientific poll." As consumers of media products, we have no idea what this actually means. That is, exactly WHICH rules did they violate? Well, you can be pretty sure in most cases that at the very least, the sample size was not statistically significant.

Undoubtedly, you're voting. You're either taking your lunch break to do so, or waiting until you get out of work, or skipping class... Or doing whatever it is you have to do in order to VOTE. If you're not, then I'll request that you please turn in your credentials as a human being and live in the wild for the rest of your existence. You have a say, and you'd best be using it!

However, that's not what's grinding my gears today. If you refuse to exercise your right to active citizenship, so be it. Today, I'm going to complain, once again, about the plague upon humanity that is the prevailing conventional wisdom.

All of the pundits on television have been brashly rattling off polling results and attempting to predict today's outcomes based on polling results across the country. Conventional wisdom holds that these polls good indicators of the outcomes. That they have strong predictive power. Hence, the debate and discussion revolving around which candidates are going to win which states is rife with statistics derived from the results of these polls.

How many people would you guess are being questioned in these polls? 1000? 5,000? 10,000? One would imagine that a significant percentage of the population were undoubtedly being questioned - such is the resolute conviction with which the results are being used to predict who will win each state!

Haha. Fat chance. Take a look at the bottom of that little box they have the chart in next time. Usually they have the sample size in there. State polls? I've seen numbers as low as 200. National? Try 1,000. The question is - why? The pollsters don't have enough time or money to ask EVERYONE how they're going to vote, so they have to pin down a reliable sample size. The conventional wisdom says that these sample sizes are derived by responsible statisticians, and are widely adhered to by polls around the country.

Sadly, this is NOT the case. Most of the criticism you'll see of the polls is that they employ an unreliable sample frame - that the people being asked who they are voting for are often inadequately representative of the entire sample population, be it due to demographic distribution, or researcher error. There is however, an additional concern - is the sample size large enough to warrant statistical significance?

If you don't have a background in stats and are curious as to how this decision should actually be come to, here's what is generally accepted as the definitive study: http://www.osra.org/itlpj/bartlettkotrlikhiggins.pdf

There are many variables that determine what the minimum sample size should be for any given population - alpha level for each tail, variance estimate, number of standard deviations, acceptable margin of error - since they're all different and we aren't looking at any data, it's hard to say what the minimum sample size for a given state would be. Two things however, are certain. The first is that the data is categorical, which pushes the required minimum sample size up. The second is that we'll be choosing a fairly small t-value, because it's a two tailed test, and we're reasonably sure the actual margin of error isn't greater than acceptable.

Haha - half of you are yelling at me - "WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN ENGLISH???" Well, instead of talking in math for the next few paragraphs, let's do something simpler. Working backwards, the majority of state polls I've seen have been averaging about 300 responders. After doing a few quick estimates with the aforementioned assumptions, the minimum sample size from a population of 100 would be about 80-something. From a population of 1000? About 400. From 10,000? Well over 600. See a pattern here? 10,000 is FAR below the number of persons even voting in a small state like New Hampshire.

Even if we severely relax our assumptions, which is undoubtedly what many of these folks are doing, we end up needing more than 250 responders in a population of 10,000. The only way you can relax those assumptions is by being absolutely sure that your sample frame is as diverse and representative as it should be. Sadly, since this isn't observational data and people have to volunteer information, you're really going to want a much bigger sample size than folks have been using.

Not to mention that on TOP of all that statistical mumbo-jumbo, some people LIE, some people change their minds, and some people don't even vote. If you're trying to guess the outcomes this Super Tuesday my advice is as follows: forget about the polls, and read between the lines. Take a look at the political data on each state and make an educated guess. The conventional wisdom is that the polls are a fair predictor of outcomes and therefore very useful tools. The truth is that they are generally statistically flawed and, while useful at times, should generally be taken like everything else in politics: with a grain of salt, and alot of tequila.

Why the Media Is Stoopid...

...And Why We Should Start Thinking For Ourselves

Originally Posted: January 8th, 2008

Frustration with the mass media is a running theme in my writing. Lol. More often than not, it seems that American mass media is content to be a great purveyor of the conventional wisdom, whether it be correct, or incorrect information we're being supplied with. This is just one example of one such incidence.

I got about a dozen comments on this one, and sought to clarify my position by responding that the title of the blog was intended to indicate that the content of mass media is misleading. It's not that the people producing it are stupid, it's that it is designed to inform or create the public opinion. Mass media is doing a poor job of educating the public, either because it seeks to mislead, or because it doesn't trust the consumer to be able to understand the issues, and therefore provides us with watered down information.

If you turn on your television right now you'll find coverage of the NH primary on any number of news networks. After about 10 minutes the question you'll find yourself asking is: Why am I still watching this?

How much of it ISN'T just recycled macro garbage? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm guessing about 10%?

Why is the New Hampshire primary so important? There are a range of reasons, but the MAIN reason it carries so much weight is very simple. It's because the MEDIA devotes about as much attention to it as it does the general election. For weeks before it, you don't hear about anything but it - and for weeks after it, it's constantly referred to as a benchmark for candidates' future successes and failures.

So what's the problem? Who cares if the media is devoting so much attention to this stuff? Well I do - the problem is that when you turn on your blasted television, it's all sensationalism and there's not an ounce of real in depth analysis going on.

Why don't you tell us what the percentage of past presidential candidates that won their primary in NH and went on to win their party's nomination is? If you're actually wondering, for the Democrats, it's about 57% since like 1950; for the Republicans I believe it's as high as almost 80%.

Now let's work that backwards. Why is it so much higher for Republican candidates? Maybe it's because the voters in New Hampshire aren't as representative as the entire population as we think they are? Or maybe, they're more representative of the population than we think they are?? Or maybe it's because as an entire country of voters, we're not as easily influenced by these early wins as media persons think??? Or a HOST of other reasons. Those are questions I'd love to have potential answers to. Or to see some stuffy looking dude in a suit and tie from some multi-million dollar think tank answering. I guess I won't get to see any of that 'till sometime tomorrow.

Instead, what do I get? Some equally stuffy looking people with the fancy title of "media analyst" or "chief political analyst", or some other crap that actually only has backing in some sort of fantasy world that the some hand behind the media has nicely framed and polished the rest of us to see. It's like hungrily diving into that tasty bowl of lo-mein you just ordered, only to find that once you've been sitting there for a while after having devoured it, your mouth is dry and parched. All because those tasty morsels of goodness (or information in this analogy) were actually loaded with MSG - nothing.

So don't act so surprised, because trust me, you're not, really. They just want you to think you are.

Don't be shocked that John McCain made a "comeback". He won in NH eight years ago, did he not? Given the demographics it's no surprise either. Those hawks (and I say that with the greatest level of respect and admiration) in NH know who their man is.

Don't be shocked that Hilary Clinton made a "comeback" either. To have doubted her entire campaign because of a low yield in Iowa was ridiculous - on the macro level Iowa democrats lean farther left than dems in NH. Of course those hippies (and I say that with the greatest level of respect and admiration) over in Iowa favored Edwards.

Don't be shocked that the media will use the NH primary as the measuring stick for weeks to come, because yes, it's a hell of an important race - but not for the reasons we get told all the time. I've heard all kinds of crap tonight from pundits - that "the polls were wrong" and "people changed their votes between being polled and voting" and all sorts of other crap. Get a REAL analyst on their and tell us about the micro side. Get the pollsters up and let them explain that when they poll and entire country as to who they think will win in a state primary, it doesn't mean the people that actually vote there are going to be influenced by it. (Hell, a monkey could explain that. Put a monkey up there.)

All I want is some real damn information. Stop substituting complicated answers to complicated questions with over-simplified bullshit conventional wisdom ones. It's okay to tell us that you're waiting for some REAL analysts to weigh in. But I suppose that's what you'd do if you weren't trying to sway public opinion left and right every chance you got. Where's the BBC* when I bloody well need it?

*This was not to suggest that the BBC is particularly less biased, but to indicate that in Europe in general, there is a greater effort to separate punditry and crappy analysis from the actual news reporting. When you tune in to the 6pm news in Britain, you get a bunch of causal facts; speculation is generally labeled as such, and expounded upon in news specials, minimizing the use of conventional wisdom explanations and isolating much of the spin.

You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?

Originally Posted: January 5th, 2008

Written in the spirit of a particular Family Guy, I really started writing this note because I found it silly that people make New Year's resolutions. By the end of it, it had evolved into a laundry list of some of societies more annoying but less controversial habits that I thought should be eradicated. Like an infestation of vermin, or, something.

So this post was almost entitled, "Musings of a [Not So] Madman", but I guess either title works, so really, read at your own risk.

Why you ask? (As always...) Well, it occurred to me that most people make New Year's resolutions. Some just choose one thing the want to change in their lives, or something they want to start (or stop) doing... Others make a whole list and enthusiastically proclaim that they'll be checking things off said list as they have their most productive year to date!

Well, I say, stop. Stop making new year's resolutions. If there's something in your life that you aren't happy with, just change it. Right then and there. Don't procrastinate for an entire year until you find you haven't achieved it and have to try it all again next year anyway. If you've managed to achieve your new years resolutions in the past, well hey, more power to you - but here's a thought.

Instead of making resolutions, why not convince the world, that on New Years Day, we should all just stop being assholes? Here is a list of things people should STOP doing in order to achieve such an end and make the world a better place.

1) Littering. There really is no excuse. If the crap is yours, please, relieve the rest of us of it and hang onto it until you get to a trash can. You don't want whatever the particular item is, so what makes you think any of the rest of us want to see it?

2) Hitting people with your shoulder as you walk through a crowd. Seriously, there's no excuse. If I can swivel my entire body to avoid your damn shoulder, well hell, the least you could do is have the decency, or common sense, to move yours an inch.

3) Blowing smoke in other peoples' faces "unintentionally". You're surrounded by people, and you're telling me, that just then, at that particular moment, you feel the need to release your second hand smoke? Stop complaining about how expensive cigarettes are, and how much you hate the "sin" tax, and swallow that shit.

4) Smoking. You're killing babies. Real babies. You're increasing the infant mortality rate unless you're doing it in a cellar somewhere. Seriously, I'll show you an extensive study by one Chay Greenstone that proves it. Just stop.

5) Voting your conscience. Voting your conscience is like saying you're too lazy to take a look at the issues and vote yourself. Jiminy Cricket was a smart guy, but that didn't stop Pinocchio from getting swallowed by a whale. If you're going to vote, pay attention to politics, engage in public discourse, do some introspection and obtain as objective an understanding of the issues and how they affect you as an individual (as much as humanly possible) before casting your ballot. Otherwise, you might as well move to China where your vote ain't worth graphite you make your mark with anyway. (Graphite - pencil - get it? Good.)

6) Hating the French if you're an American. Think back to your high school history classes - remember who helped liberate you from the British? This country would not exist if not for the French. There's even a miniature Statue of Liberty in Paris - and guess what? It's the original.

7) Hating Americans in you're French. Okay, so W screwed up. Next time you're devouring a royale avec frommage (read: Big Mack with Cheese for the non-francophones), kindly remember where it came from, and that it was discontinued in Germany.

8) Buying Pez-Dispensers. THEY WON'T STOP MAKING THEM UNTIL YOU STOP BUYING THEM!!!

9) Walking on the wrong side of the sidewalk/street/pathway/corridor/aisle, etc! Know the convention of the country you're in! You wouldn't drive on the wrong side of the road, would you?

10) NOT watching Prison Break. Seriously. It's the most underrated show on television. Take a look, I promise you won't be disappointed - Mondays at 8 on Fox.

*Phew* Okay, that's it. Got it out of my system. Happy New Year all!

Love,
New-Years-Scrooge

Popularity and the Popular Vote

Originally Posted: October 29th, 2007

This was another rant... I've since decided that the whole idea of "voting one's conscience" is a deeply flawed saying and concept. People shouldn't vote intuitively, as such a notion suggests; we should vote only after having developed an educated understanding of the different candidates positions, policies and platforms.

Recently, I've been struck by a particular phenomenon. What might it be? Stephen Colbert's "Presidential Campaign". There are many things I could say about it; some of my opinions are more liberal, others are more conservative. In this note, I'll avoid bi-partisanship, and simply say this:

It's great - it's awesome - that 1.1 MILLION people, have joined the Facebook group supporting Stephen Colbert's candidacy for President (in South Carolina and South Carolina only...); but HOW MANY of these people are going to VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE; or actually even VOTE?

Of the 1,100,000 people that have joined the group, only 2,630 have registered as new voters. (Approximately 0.24% of the people in the group.) Now, quite obviously, this is a Facebook rant - I'm not doing a rigorous statistical study here - but think about that number in relative terms. 0.24% is a NEGLIGIBLE increase, even by any stretch of the imagination. In a country that saw the highest voter turnout in 36 years (since 1968) in 2004 of about 57% of the eligible voting population, an increase of 2,360 people is statistically insignificant. (I'll maintain that it's a noble endeavor - but it amounts to less than 0.001% of the eligible voting population.)

And goodness only knows how many of those "new voters" actually even VOTE. So what's my point? My point is that instead of joining some pointless Facebook group, you should GO OUT AND VOTE next November. I don't care if you're a joker, stoner, punkass, intellectual, hippy, anarchist, racist, clown, know-it-all, dumbass; liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, asshole, communist, nazi, reform, falconist - whatever - just GO OUT AND VOTE NEXT NOVEMBER. As much as I love Stephen Colbert, joining that group is absolutely pointless unless you actually intend to make your voice heard in the next election.

I understand how many people have become cynical and jaded, but seriously; while you yourself might only constitute one two hundred and forty millionth of the entire voting population of the United States of America, every vote does count. But you have to actually VOTE to become part of that aggregate. Unlike whether the Rockies or the Red Sox won tonight, you actually have a say in who determines the direction and therefore the fate of your country (and the rest of the freaking free world).

The fact that more people have joined a group supporting a fictional candidate than any other real candidate is fun, but at the same time, somewhat disturbing. In effect, it's a measure of the number of people that are interested in political issues, but are either 1) too concerned about what other people think of their true beliefs to voice them, or 2) have become too jaded to act upon them. So by all means, join "1,000,000 Strong for Stephen T. Colbert" - but also, please, DO vote in November 2008; and vote your conscience. Take a stand for the things you believe in, whatever they might be.

Immigration Rant

Originally Posted: June 28th, 2007

This was originally written just after the house immigration bill failed to pass towards the end of the summer of 2007. I believe I posted my mood at that point as, "annoyed". Lol. In retrospect, I'll take this opportunity to apologize for the somewhat caustic tone of this note, haha. I also took Lou Dobbs off my shit list, since I've since revised my opinion of the man.

Immigration... Jesus Christmas, are you bloody kidding me? Every other country in the world has some sort of static, functional and serious immigration policy (sure, they're not all GOOD, but at least they have one). Now the fabled Immigration Bill is in its death throes, and every media and political analyst, pundit, and hell, barbershop gossip, is voicing their opinion on it, and they're mostly WRONG. And the politicians? The biggest problem here is that they all have entirely the wrong incentives in the whole debacle - they're the farthest from the truth of all.

But who am I to hold my tongue? Here's my spiel - you may not think I'm right, but I sure as hell am not as wrong as most of these clowns.

To the pundits, analysts, gossips, old people talking in the restaurant I was in the other night: Stop blaming "big government". You can't claim that there's a problem with the bureaucracy when the bureaucracy hasn't even had a chance to deal with the issue yet. There is no effective process because there is no effective policy. That isn't the government's fault, it's the politicians' fault. You have to check the source of the stream before you start trying to reengineer the channel if you want clean water; fix the leadership before the process if you want good policy.

Similarly, quit comparing the job that the government would do with whatever immigration legislation is put in place with FEMA during Katrina and other past botches. You can't corelate a few isolated incidents (albeit, horrendous and tragic disasters) with a total breakdown of the goverment. That misconception is entirely the MEDIA'S fault. Think about all of the situations that the federal government has actually done a good job of managing through either regulatory or response agencies over the years: Fraud. Hurricane Charlie. Inflation and Unemployment. Sure, alot of areas need work, but to say that the government - that the bureaucracy, civil servants, administrators, and that ALL of the processes that are currently in place - have failed miserably, is hyperbolic at best.

To the Media: Seriously, I love you guys. But quit dumbing things down into "Mc-News". If you don't think we're smart enough to eat up the truth, then educate us. Teach us about the processes even if it takes a few extra minutes instead of making such broad and conclusions. The education system certainly isn't doing it. Less opinion, more facts. I don't give 2 shits what Bill O'Reilly has to say about anything, and anyone that does should be DEPRIVED of such an opportunity.

To the Right*: You can't have it both ways. You can't have your corporate buddies benefitting from cheap labor, AND throw all of the brown people out of the country. It just won't work. I can understand not wanting to give "amnesty" to "criminals", but what else are you going to do? It's not like they killed people or anything - if you really want to punish them, have them do some community service as a condition of their good legal status or something. I hate to say it, but there is an unbelievably racist underpinning to these arguments. Kicking illegal immigrants out has nothing to do with prosecuting criminals; it has everything to do with xenophobia in its worst form. Certain people think their way of life is being threatened by foreigners of a different race and cultural background, and want to do everything in their power to keep them from having any sort of power in society. So it's in the right's best interest to make sure nothing happens with that bill: if it passes they have to get over their collective cognitive dissonance (between big business and preserving majority privilege), but if it fails they can rely on States to tighten up the borders while their corporate buddies keep their access to the current huge pool of absurdly cheap labor.

To the Moderates: Grow a pair and pick a damn side! I sure as hell don't agree with everything on any one side of the aisle, but there's never going to be a third centrist party in this country. Optimize and prioritize your issues and join up; all of your naysaying in either direction is just pissing people off.

To the Left: Just because it started in the Bush White House doesn't mean we should beat the every loving crap out of it. The man is running from the hawks in his own party on this one - embrace his offer and turn it into a victory for the party instead of pandering. Being in opposition is a game that needs to be played very carefully - if the Democrats would only embrace this like the opposition in parlimentary systems do instead of trying to stay safe and not take risks, we'd get alot more done.

Which segues into my next point: Start talking about the hard things! Let's not be quiet about race, immigration and xenophobia issues at times like this. Sure, we respond to clarify that we want the criminal aliens and drug smugglers arrested, but we don't argue the point that some of our opponents are trying to implement racist, classist, or otherwise discriminatory policies - we use more "tasteful" language, thereby obscuring our message. We don't call our opponents out when they turn mere talking points into arguments, and similarly do ourselves a great disservice.

I might not have all the solutions, and I might not know the truth; but anyone can tell you how to get a little closer to the truth, once they know what to look for. Sure, there's some stuff wrong with the government, but before they can be addressed, the political will to do so must be present. The government has not broken down; its leadership has. The government has not failed us; the politicians have. Until the political will exists to address the real problems and frankly discuss pragmatic and REALISTIC (you can't ask all of these people to leave and come back, that's just silly - they know you can't catch them, are they really going to leave?) solutions (and until racists either become real, decent human beings), the US will continue to have no coherent immigration policy.

It's not a question of "Americans" having lost faith in their government like the media has suddenly started stating as fact. You check those polls (which are hideously flawed anyway) and compare them to similar ones decades past, and people probably had the same general opinion of the job that their SYSTEM of government was doing. It's not the system's fault that the neocons are too busy playing with toy soldiers in Iraq (and I say this not to do any disservice to the amazing men and women that are fighting over there, but only to poke fun at the Bushies) to treat domestic policies with the rigor that they deserve. I didn't hear of any nationwide referendums, or even serious studies, where they actually asked anyone in the general population about this issue... or any issue for that matter - did you? Did we miss something??? I don't think we did. It's a question of political will.

* Hey! Hey! Chill out! I'm not saying all conservatives are racists - there are many of you that I love like family! My generalizations are really aimed at a select , subtle element, not at everyone. One love!!

An Article Every American Should Read

Originally Posted: June 6th, 2007

I believe the link has since expired, and I'm unable to find the full text of the article online to post for you here; I'll see what I can do.

I titled this note "An Article Every American Should Read", but it's really an article that EVERYONE should read.

"How to Restore America's Place in the World" by Fareed Zakaria is remarkably poignant. One need not agree with each and every one of his policy prescriptions (as even I didn't), to see that both the spirit of his article and the analysis provided therein are spot on.

Zakaria's article lays out exactly what the next American President will need to do in order to restore the international community's faith in the United States as a responsible hegemon, and to maintain its position as the recognized and trusted leader of the global system. (Lol, if we've ever discussed world affairs alot of this article's content might sound familiar - I've gotta say, he's a man after my own heart!)

Check it out here, at Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/page/0/

The Future of American Soccer

Originally Posted: January 12th, 2007

I wrote a really depressing blog about Iraq, and admittedly, needed to raise my own spirits a bit after having done so, and figures I should do the same for anyone else that happened to read my blog at the time, lol. I still have faith that interest in football (soccer) in America will eventually soar as a result. (Advertisers might not be happy about this, but hey, maybe the television networks can figure some other way out to make televising the games more profit-friendly.)

Yes folks, that's right. David Beckham just became the highest paid soccer player and sportsman in the world, with his move from Real Madrid in Spain (the "evil empire" - the New York Yankees of soccer, for those of you that don't follow the sport) to the LA Galaxy in the ML). It's a 5-year $250 million deal.

So what does this mean for American Soccer? Obviously, having as big a name as David Beckham playing the sport is going to be great for marketing and publicity. It'll draw alot of people to the follow the American soccer league, both in the US and outside.

But I predict that the biggest impact is going to be the result of the price tag on his contract. This will probably be Beckham's final move of his career. Firstly, he's a phenomenal player. Not only is he a phenomenal player, but he will easily dominate soccer in the US, being head and shoulders above the rest. At that MASSIVE salary, will other US teams now seek to woo other big name international players to the sport? If LA Galaxy merch and tickets start selling like hot cakes, you bet your bottom dollar they will.

So I HOPE that this is the start of something great. I hope this helps build soccer into the world religion it is for the rest of us to something at least approaching that greatness in the US. (Because hey, as much as I like baseball, the season is too damn long.) Hopefully Beckham's employment in the US will be a milestone in years to come, as the moment that the sport made it's turnaround in the United States.

The Future of Iraq

Originally Posted: January 12th, 2007

The ever-changing situation in Iraq has long since made this post somewhat obsolete, but I think the themes still ring true. Iraq saw increasing sectarian violence towards the end of 2006, which continued well into the new year. At one point in this post I suggested that the Iraqi war was not yet a civil war - this point became harder to defend as the year wore on and casualties rose. Eventually the American troop surge and re-evaluated strategy reduced violence in some parts of Iraq, leading to a softening of public opinion here. Such a change may have allowed John McCain, with his pro-war policies, to become the Republican nominee - whatever the cause, my prediction that the U.S. would leave Iraq even if the right won the general election in 2008 is surely invalid. The situation for the Iraqi government also does not seem as grim at the moment - their military may not yet be ready to take on the task of taking back control of their country from the insurgents, but they may slowly be on their way to being capable of doing so should U.S. forces leave the country in 2008.

My position when writing the blog was that the U.S. still needed more troops in Iraq in order to provide human security and defeat the insurgency, whether they be their own, Iraq's, or the international community's. It remains so. It was also that given the proper training of Iraqi forces, the U.S. should draw down its troops to take on a supportive role, and allow the Iraqi government and military to put the country back together how they saw fit. It also remains so. There won't be peace in Iraq until there is not only minimal U.S. presence, but also until the Iraqi government and military are empowered enough to provide human security, economic stability and democratic solutions. Any potential American or international initiatives should be based on such facts.


So a while ago I wrote a blog about the crisis in the Middle East involving Israel and Lebanon. If you read my blog (haha, yeah like anyone does!), you might remember me having said something about statecraft and sacrifice - about people having to make some really tough decisions and take some difficult stances in order to resolve the crisis. I've said the same thing about the Iraq war for a long time, and stand by that.

I won't bother to criticize the Bush administration at this point - my opinion on the second Iraq war, the old Iraq strategy, and the "new" Iraq strategy are all irrelevant. What I will do is state, quite frankly, what MUST be done if Iraq is to return to stability (and eventually peace), and what the future probably holds for Iraq. I think that there are several fairly likely outcomes to the current situation, which hold big implications for both the U.S. and the Middle East... But again, I'll stick to the two topics I mentioned before.

What needs to be done to foster stability in Iraq? If you remember your history, you might realize that one of the only reasons, and the main reason, that Iraq was stable in recent times was because of Saddam Hussein. As horrible as that is, and as much as he was a vile, disgusting, horrible excuse for a human being, it's the truth. Iraq has for centuries, been one of the most violent parts of the Middle East. (Though we must also remember, that thousands of years ago, human civilization found some of its roots in precisely the same location.) The clash of different ethnic groups and religious sects in Iraq has provided fuel for centuries of conflict, and was only exacerbated by the slicing up of the Middle East by Imperial Britain after the Second World War. The only reason these different groups of people we able to coexist "peacefully" over the last 20 years or so was due to FEAR imposed by Saddam and the Bathist regime - that if you did anything they didn't like, you would be killed, or tortured, or worse. Stability was imposed from within; forced in a brutal manner for all the wrong reasons in all the wrong ways.

So obviously, as many have said, as entire reports have REPORTED and entire predictions had PREDICTED, not only was winning in Iraq was going to be hard, but rebuilding the country and fostering a stable environment (to which human security is obviously paramount) was going to be a monumental task. It should be no surprise that with only 140,000+ troops on the ground, after 3 years the insurgency in Iraq is still waging a grueling war of attrition against allied and Iraqi forces. These different factions are seeking to settle their differences through violence - a position which has been validated by everyone - by Iraqis in the past, by the brutal Bathist regime, and by us, the International community, by the invasion of their homeland by allied forces.

Taking all of this and more into consideration, there is a fairly obvious solution to the crisis in Iraq. It hinges on addressing the concerns of all of the different factions in Iraq. One prominent foreign policy pundit said the other day, on BBC World, that one thing we have to remember is that American forces are still winning every single battle. Let me say that again: American forces are still winning every single battle. There are concerns about deaths of American troops, domestic concerns about support for the war, etc, and I am not disputing any of that. Leave that entirely out of my argument. What I'm saying here, is that winning is important, but it isn't enough. This is perhaps one of the few things that both Bush's "new Iraq strategy" and the Iraq Study Group Report both agree on. They both agree that more needs to be done.

And why? Because despite winning every single battle, an entire host of other things are happening:
1) Iraqi civilians and security forces are dying by the thousands.
2) The insurgency is growing, and seems to have an unlimited supply of martyrs and fanatics, who come from both inside and outside Iraq.
3) There is no political or public dialogue between different factions.
4) The only political dialogue taking place between the Iraqi state and the insurgent factions is bilateral; the government does not have the power, means, influence, resources or experience to mediate between factions, or seem impartial enough to even seem like a plausible mediator.

In addition to these things, there are a few things about Iraq that we need to remember, that have been pointed out by many over the course of the conflict:
1) Rule of law in Iraq is pretty much non-existent.
2) The main military actor in Iraq is the US; other countries need to be involved.
3) The success of non-military initiatives is dependent on human security.
4) Democracy is pointless if it doesn't truly represent the people.

So back to the point - how do we get back to a stable Iraq?

More troops are required. Why? Because not only are there not enough American and Iraqi forces, but the ratio of highly skilled to low skilled troops is pathetically poor. More American troops are needed if the insurgency is to whittled down to a controllable level. This is an awful conclusion to have to come to, because it means more lives are required. More deaths are required. Many will have to sacrifice if stability in Iraq is to be achieved, and this is the sad reality of the conflict and war in general.

Optimally, I would say the best bet would be for Bush and the State Department to woo other countries to send more troops. Admit that things have gone wrong. Admit that the whole thing was a horrible idea, but maintain that stability is necessary in the Middle East. Suck up their pride, and convince the French, the Germans, the Brazilians, the Russians, and the Canadians, that they need troops to help train Iraqi forces, hold ground, and assist Iraqi organs in policing actions. If this can be done, then American forces can concentrate on clearing the streets of insurgents while everyone else makes encouraging a return to the rule of law, de-Bathization and rebuilding Iraqi forces and institutions a priority, which will in turn help work towards stability in Iraq.

The clash of different factions, cults, sects and ideologies in Iraq is something that will take years, if not decades, perhaps even centuries to truly accomplish. I think the solution here lies, like many have said, in relying on the democratic political discourse, diplomacy and institution building. Policies need to be put in place to resolve these issues. But all of this needs to take place on Iraqi terms. The rest of the world needs to stop trying to influence the direction of the country and act merely as watchful and vigilant advisers (yeah, like that'll ever happen), while the Iraqis piece together their own peaceful society. The solutions will be difficult; maybe they'll decide that they want to have a federal structure, maybe they'll go for three separate countries - either way, it needs to be come to with all of the factions and sects at the table. It also has to occur with the belief - the FEAR of the POTENTIAL insurgents, that if they step out of line and become violent, they will be utterly destroyed. The right incentives must be put in place, as in any peaceful society.

But clearly, this is all obscenely complicated. The bottom line is that 1) the insurgency must be crushed in order to begin the return to stability, 2) that Iraq must return to the rule of law for this to succeed, and 3) that diplomatic and democratic solutions must be not only embraced and implemented, but made a priority. SIMULTANEOUSLY. Pulling American troops out of Iraq, even on a timetable and relying solely on democratic solutions will not achieve peace in Iraq, but neither will simply adding another 20,000 troops and handing out cash to Iraqi civilians. As usual, there is no one shouting for moderation - no one is reaching across the aisle and trying to bridge conservative and liberal solutions, which clearly is the overall solution to this entire crisis. Why? Haha, because everyone wants to be the next President. Similarly, no one in the international community is reaching out to the Americans, or the Iraqis, and offering an olive branch to resolve previous disagreement and help fix Iraq (consequently, Americans aren't reaching out to the international community either). So where is the leadership? Where is the statecraft and sacrifice - the honor that we're all so damn passionate about?

As for predictions, let's go with the two different extreme scenarios.

The first? Lets go with the current plan to ramp up US troops and moderately expand other programs to foster the rule of law. If it goes ahead, unchanged, we're not going to see the death of the insurgency. Iraqi civilians will still be targeted, will still die and suffer horribly, as will Iraqi security forces, and the war on the ground will not be won, unless either a hell of alot more troops are added and there is more support and participation by the international community. American troops will pull out after the 2008 election under this plan, regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans win.

The second? Lets say that somehow the Dems manage to stop the surge of troops and have their own strategy implemented immediately. As US troops leave Iraq, the country will descend into utter chaos. The current Iraqi government will most certainly be toppled, and thousands, if not millions or Iraqis will die in the ensuing civil war. What we are seeing in Iraq right now might be close to a civil war, but it certainly is not. We're seeing measured, tactical engagements between factions - not open warfare in a free for all setting in which hundreds of people are dying every day.

It is of the utmost importance that we find a way to marry these two schools of thought on the Iraq crisis if we are to foster both a stable and peaceful Iraqi state.

What a depressing post. So, on to something a little more uplifting... Check out my next blog, lol.

Punishment vs. Payback vs. Prevention

Originally Posted: July 24th, 2006

I remember writing this very quickly, and later thinking that there were a couple of points I should have spent more time on and clarified. The first, is that I used the three words very contextually. None of the three, in and of themselves, are bad things. The second, is at the end, where I very vaguely stated that prevention is dangerous. I should have said that prevention CAN be dangerous, not that it absolutely is. I should also have specified that, quite obviously, methods of prevention can vary, from extremely violent to subtly peaceful. My original intention was to make the case that the only honorable way to solve the conflict was by relying on solutions which reject motives of punishment and payback, but embrace prevention. Such a just solution would be/would have been one which both sides could respect, and therefore, be more inclined to adopt and maintain in the future.

Three P-words, and three motives that are each potentially disturbing... Yes - I'm once again talking about the escalating situation in the Middle East. It seems that "Punishment" is the word of the day; reporters talking about the IDF "punishing" Hezbollah for a history of bloody violence and the recent rocket attacks.

Why is this motive disturbing? Self-defense should not be about punishment - and this is my firm belief. Was nothing learned from World War I; from the "punishment" of Germany and its allies? By punishing your enemy you do nothing but breed resentment and strengthen his (or her) resolve to destroy you. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, but I maintain that this is entirely the wrong way to go about doing it. You can't destroy an ideology with force; force simply feeds the flames and spirits of those that have lost the most, and have the least left to lose.

Consequently, of course, this notion cuts both ways. What got the Lebanese into this mess in the first place? Hezbollah "punishing" the Israelis. So the cycle of violence seemingly perpetuates itself. Regardless of who you would like to blame for the crisis, or who you would like to support, please discard this idea of punishment - it only contributes to the cycle of violence we continue to witness, now on a daily basis.

Payback - you might be wondering, how is payback different than punishment? Well, payback is the word that no one has used, out loud and in public, to define what's going on. The scary word that no one wants to use because of the cognitive dissonance it creates, reverberating around the skull. How can you define Israel's current actions in the Middle East and payback, and still maintain the moral high ground.

The answer is simply that you cannot. There is no such thing as righteous vengeance. No one wants to say it, but there sure as hell are alot of people thinking it. Payback, though a silent one, is still a motive. The wronged want revenge for their innocents that have been killed, and therefore silently or overtly support the assault on Lebanon - and the rocket attack on Israel. Whether it be "revenge" for innocent lives on either side, or "revenge" for those that were killed in the US embassy bombing years ago, or "revenge" against the collective terrorists, one would either have to be extremely naive, or experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance themselves, to not acknowledge that revenge is clearly a motive in the actions of the major players in this conflict.

Why am I pointing all of this out? Everything I have been hearing over the past few days has been about resolving this crisis, and all of the dialogue usually comes back to this honorable notion of self defense. I'm not sure what I would be hearing if I were in another part of the world, but here in the US the prevailing idea in circulation that the only motive for Israel's actions here are self defense, and that they should therefore be allowed to continue their actions unperturbed. I would agree, if the only motive I could fathom were self defense, but I would have to be unforgivingly naive to believe such a thing.

Why prevention? This, to me, is a far more useful motive than self defense. "Prevention is better than cure." Some smart old guy said that. Israel is trying to prevent their citizens from coming to harm - from being attacked. Other motives may be present, but the motive that the entire international community respects and supports without refutation is this one motive. Hezbollah has all kinds of other motives, all of them condemnable. Regardless of motive, their methodology is absolutely corrupt, so far more condemnable. However, there is one thing that they probably wish to prevent; and that is the destruction of their organization. Hezbollah might be willing to martyr its members, but surely it does not feel similarly about its organization. This is truly useful capital in this conflict; not violence, but prevention. The only way this conflict can be resolved permanently is through diplomacy and creative problem solving; problem solving which shares this motive of prevention for all parties, and does not involve bullying (which I guarantee, will be the first step if a ceasefire is ever reached... Why? Because no one wants to let go of those first 2 P's).

Why is prevention dangerous? Think back to previous wars... Unwillingness to take risks always results in unnecessary casualties - think appeasement in WW II, think Vietnam - even think back to this last Iraq War. Bold, decisive actions of statecraft and diplomacy are needed, and sadly, the world seems to have lost its stomach for making hard decisions.

Killing The Penny

Originally Posted: July 18th, 2006

Another one from the summer of 2006, this particular piece was my two cents on a fairly silly idea. I was vaguely amused; while I still haven't seen a balanced study on what the effects of getting rid of the penny would actually do, I'm still remain unconvinced that their death is necessary.

So this idea has been floating around for a while, and it keeps popping back up every now and again thanks to this dude from Arizona*. Basically, the argument is that because Zinc is now so expensive, pennies now cost 1.4 cents to produce. Therefore, the US Mint should stop minting pennies, and simply round all prices up or down to denominations of 5 cents, effectively killing the penny.

This has to be the single DUMBEST idea I've ever heard... I suppose it makes intuitive sense, but really:

1) What the hell would we do with all of those old pennies? There must be hundreds of millions, if not, more, pennies floating around in circulation. You mean to tell me that they're just going to be absolutely worthless? Maybe we can melt them all down and make a huge Zinc statue of the the dude that proposed the bill.

2) One thing the bill calls for is rounding prices up or down. If you were a manufacturer, wouldn't you just round you just inflate all of your prices to the nearest 5 cents instead of bending to the whim of the random teams of guys they pay to round all of these prices? (Who we also have to pay, which would surely cost a significant amount per year.) If everything you're selling is like, $X and 99 cents, wouldn't you make the consumer pay that extra cent and simply sell your product for $X+1? I sure as hell would. So we might save 4 cents on every penny, but consumers would still lose anywhere from a penny to 4 on every purchase.

3) Besides, what kind of freaking job is that anyway? "Hi, my name is Bob, and I update prices for the penny to nickel switch in 2007." Even if he's just managing the software that does it, I'm betting we'd have an all new contender for the profession with the most suicides per year.

4) Mr. Kolbe, I happen to like pennies and really do not appreciate your quest against them. Think about all the great things you can do with a penny. Donate it to charity... Penny wars... Make a wish on it by throwing it into a fountain... Flick it across the room at your buddy's head during Physics class...

5) Okay, but seriously folks. There is one real reason that there is no justification whatsoever for putting the country through all the drama of killing the penny. Seniorage. Every dollar that gets printed costs the Fed MUCH less than a dollar to produce. So what happens to all of that extra cash? The government keeps it. This is called Seniorage. The penny costing more-than-a-penny to make most CERTAINLY does not endanger such "profits"; the mint can afford to keep making pennies.

So this is NOT a serious problem. It's not even a real problem; it is purely imagined. Sure, it might be nice to have some extra reserves by killing the penny, but its existence poses no threat whatsoever to anything. What might pose a threat is state representatives wasting taxpayers' time, money, attention and cognitive abilities puzzling over a nonexistent problem.

*And by dude from Arizona, I meant, *ahem*, the respectable Senator from Arizona. My bad.

Crisis In The Middle East

Originally Posted: July 16th, 2006

I wrote this during the summer of 2006, about Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli response. It was more of a rant than anything else. It was intended to be a neutral appraisal of the situation, with an eye to a potential solution. I still believe the only way that Israel and its neighbors will come to any sort of permanent peace is if the severe trust-deficit that exists on both sides is somehow repaid. More on that some other time.

I won't be so bold as to offer up my moral judgment of which side is right or wrong - or which side is more wrong. I won't even be so presumptuous as to attempt to accurately predict the future of this crisis, and what it might have in store for the rest of the world. There is already altogether too much of that going on. Every time I look up at the television or pick up a newspaper I'm inundated by more political posturing, useless moralizing, half-assed guesswork and half baked theories. Pundits, politicians, analysts, bureaucrats; all of them throwing their 2 cents in, and almost every single one trying to place or defer blame on some other party. Attempting to "take a stance", but for most of them it's nothing more than a further attempt to either be seen as doing or saying something honorable, or yet another instance in which their own personal brand of ethics is yet again being proven to be at great odds with any sort of system of morality. That's not what this blog is about. Has humanity really become so self-righteous that we are more fixated on laying blame than solving the problem at hand?

However, if this blog were about who is to blame, I would only have one thing to say. I would quite simply cite one of my favorite quotations by a profoundly astute journalist named Gwynne Dyer: "Actions do have consequences." It's not enough to simply say that, "Israel has a right to defend itself." Or that, "The people of Lebanon are being unjustly persecuted for the crimes of a terrorist organization." If you're laying blame, you MUST take into consideration all of the other players in this sordid tale. When I say "take into consideration," I don't mean, make a bunch of accusations about other countries that have played a negative role in creating this crisis, whether it was through actions 20 years ago or actions 2 months ago. You MUST provide hard evidence and accurate intelligence to back up your accusations. Have we seen a single person volunteer such, since the beginning of this crisis?

If you haven't been following things, the answer is an emphatic NO. Therefore, return to what we do know. Not what accusations have been made, and not all of the unverifiable accusations that have been made. How did the Middle East get this bad? Which actions were taken long ago in the past that have led to the geopolitical scene before us today? It is very easy to blame the player directly involved for their actions today, but one must also take into consideration all of the verifiable facts of the past when laying blame. It is the consequences of those actions that the world feels today.

Once again, I could editorialize at this point, and begin to lay blame as I see fit to the culprits in the current crisis; but I will refrain from doing so. This blog is about failure. The failure of the Middle East peace process. The failure of powerful men and women to take decisive action when it has mattered the most. The failure of the international system (note: NOT the United Nations, but the international system) to deal effectively with injustice. Most importantly, it is about what I believe must be the initial steps to resolving these failures.

The so-called "Middle East Peace Process" has failed, and failed miserably. Quite frankly, the burden of the blame must fall on the West for failing to exert political and diplomatic pressure on Israel to keep them at the negotiating table, and failing to put incentives in place to keep not only the Palestinians, but the rest of the conservative Arabic states at the same table. The game has been played for years and any analyst worth his salt knows how it works; one side accepts offered concessions only to renege on them because of suspected or actual foul play by the other. It cuts both ways; there is no escaping it. The only way to stop this type of behavior by states at the negotiating table is through co-operating with non-traditional allies to bring pressure on both sides in order to achieve a common goal.

Which brings us to the failure of powerful men and women to take decisive action when it was most important. The Clinton administration excelled at consensus building and bringing the pressure of the international system to bear on the Middle East in order to keep both parties at the table. The lack of political will and effort by the world's leaders is what has most clearly failed here - not only the lack of concern or involvement by the Bush administration, but that of the EU, Russia, China, and many other states that should have been involved in fostering peace in the Middle East.

The international system has also failed where this crisis is concerned, what with resolutions being circumvented or broken over the years, resolutions being vetoed, dangerous precedents having being set, but most importantly, through rampant statism. Statism, whereby supposed sovereign states are held accountable for the actions of their citizens. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but this world is far from perfect, and if conflicts are to be resolved there must be a willingness to bend to the international system. For states to 1) openly accept responsibility for the actions of their citizens, but 2) have options within the system to seek assistance if they cannot fulfill their sovereign duty. All of these events point to inadequacies in the post-Bretton Woods system. It is up to the world as a whole to fix the system, and it is up the more and most powerful countries in the system to reduce inequalities so that when incentives are offered their intentions are not as dubious. Such injustices are not the fault of the UN or any single international organization, but of the proctors of the international system who quite frankly, the fate of all of our lives lie with.

So regardless of blame, states must put pride aside to resolve these differences. If innocent lives are to be saved in the Middle East, Israel must cease military action immediately and offer an olive branch to not just Lebanon, but all of the Arab states. The only way the cycle of violence in the Middle East will end is through co-operation and mutual understanding. The different parties involved need not love each other; everyone must simply respect the others right to exist. The international community must collectively exert pressure all parties to enter negotiations and remain at the table; especially the United States, the EU, Russia, and China. What most people fail to realize is that while someone out there is supporting Hezbollah, no country as a whole benefits from its existence. INDIVIDUALS benefit from its existence. This entire idea of "state sponsored terrorism" has become a misnomer - you can blame leaders, even entire administrations, for the actions of a terrorist group, but you cannot justly blame an entire country.

Therefore, the third piece of the puzzle in stopping this thing before it gets to World War III is establishing an independent, and if not, a multi-national anti-terrorism force, that is mandated by the international community, supported by a repaired international system, and accountable to the countries that sponsor it. Short of that, we need an agreement between the Israelis and the Lebanese so that the Israelis can be allowed a limited incursion into Lebanese territory to wage war against terrorists, while shoring up the Lebanese military so that they can deal with the same extremists as they go into hiding, and police their country successfully in the future. Conservative hawks on each side will undoubtedly have no hope in such a process, but these and similar solutions are the only ones that will stop this conflict from spreading throughout the Middle East. Consequently, one should concede that if the international system were more effective, such a solution would be viable because further pressure could be accurately applied to support peace-loving governments. Destroying the lives of innocent civilians should never have to be an option; the terrorist is wrong in doing so, but so is any country that behaves similarly.