Dennis, over at The Moderate Republican (yes, there is such a thing), notes the sheer hypocrisy of many "small government" types.
The way that the far right likes to spin the role of government is that in the "Red States" like Texas, there is less government unlike in the "Blue States" where people want their government big. Well, a study shows that it is the Red States that suck from the government's teat, getting back more in federal money than they pay in taxes. For example, Mississippi gets back a whopping $1.84 for ever dollar it gives to Washington, while my adopted state of Minnesota gets back a measly 77 cents. So in essence, I am easing the tax burden of some guy in Natchez, MS.
[note: in case you forgot, red states are those that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and blue states are those that voted for Al Gore]
The study he cited noted that of the 10 states that receive the most federal largesse per dollar of federal taxes paid, 8 of them voted Republican in the last presidential election. Of the 10 states that receive the least, 7 of them voted Democrat in the last presidential election.
It noted that of all the states that received more from the government teat then they paid, 76% went to Bush in 2000. Of the states that paid more in taxes then they received back from Washington, 69% went to Gore in 2000.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
The ACLU is at it again!
The Press Republican, a Plattsburgh daily, reported on a suit filed by the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU is widely despised for opposing federal snooping in public libraries, police brutality, people who want to force religion down others' throats and other wonderful things. Now, you can add freedom of expression to the list of horrible things the ACLU advocates.
According to The Press Republican, the town of Essex had a local law which said political campaign lawn signs can only be displayed 30 days prior to election day.
The town supervisor told the paper that the town most likely will abolish the sign law because it cannot afford to keep defending it in court.
Not because, say, it was an very obvious and wholly unnecessary violation of both the state and federal constitutions.
Frankly, I'm glad that supressing freedom of expression is an expensive proposition.
Not surprisingly, the town supervisor, a Republican in an overwhelmingly Republican county, played the old "bash the ACLU" card. He said the Civil Liberties Union was suing the town only to gain publicity for itself. "When the dust settles, we will lose because our budget is small, not because our law is wrong,’’ the supervisor sniffed.
According to The Press Republican, the town of Essex had a local law which said political campaign lawn signs can only be displayed 30 days prior to election day.
The town supervisor told the paper that the town most likely will abolish the sign law because it cannot afford to keep defending it in court.
Not because, say, it was an very obvious and wholly unnecessary violation of both the state and federal constitutions.
Frankly, I'm glad that supressing freedom of expression is an expensive proposition.
Not surprisingly, the town supervisor, a Republican in an overwhelmingly Republican county, played the old "bash the ACLU" card. He said the Civil Liberties Union was suing the town only to gain publicity for itself. "When the dust settles, we will lose because our budget is small, not because our law is wrong,’’ the supervisor sniffed.
The No-Slacker Zone
Apparently, Jon Stewart (host of the most informative show on television, cable or broadcast) visited conservative yap show host Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly made several cracks, apparently in jest, about how Stewart's viewers are "stoned slackers."
It turns out, according to The Associated Press that Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research... [Stewart's channel] Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't.
Many of those who swear by ordinary political yack shows like O'Reilly, The Capital Gang, The McLaughlin Group or anything on MSNBC are reflexively dismissive of something like Stewart's The Daily Show. Anything that uses humor can't be taken seriously, according to these self-important types. And if something that uses satire is actually influential, then it's the death knell of our citizen republic!
These folks don't quite get why Stewart's program is so influential. It's not because his viewers are lazy; apparently they're not too lazy to get a college degree!People watch Stewart because he asks questions that mainstream journalists are too timid to ask. He asks questions that ordinary people want to know the answer to.
Most reporters in the corporate media are too concerned about losing their vaunted access to ask truly tough questions. They don't bother asking themselves what the purpose of access is if they don't use it.
That's why we get serenaded by chest-puffing stories about what the major party candidates allegedly did or didn't do three decades ago instead of holding candidates accountable for their actions or positions.
Instead of pooh-poohing programs like The Daily Show, the stuffed suits might want to watch his show a bit and figure out why so many consider his show relevant.
It turns out, according to The Associated Press that Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research... [Stewart's channel] Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't.
Many of those who swear by ordinary political yack shows like O'Reilly, The Capital Gang, The McLaughlin Group or anything on MSNBC are reflexively dismissive of something like Stewart's The Daily Show. Anything that uses humor can't be taken seriously, according to these self-important types. And if something that uses satire is actually influential, then it's the death knell of our citizen republic!
These folks don't quite get why Stewart's program is so influential. It's not because his viewers are lazy; apparently they're not too lazy to get a college degree!People watch Stewart because he asks questions that mainstream journalists are too timid to ask. He asks questions that ordinary people want to know the answer to.
Most reporters in the corporate media are too concerned about losing their vaunted access to ask truly tough questions. They don't bother asking themselves what the purpose of access is if they don't use it.
That's why we get serenaded by chest-puffing stories about what the major party candidates allegedly did or didn't do three decades ago instead of holding candidates accountable for their actions or positions.
Instead of pooh-poohing programs like The Daily Show, the stuffed suits might want to watch his show a bit and figure out why so many consider his show relevant.
Friday, September 24, 2004
RNC: liberals will ban Bibles
The Bush-Cheney campaign is based largely on fear-mongering with regard to terrorism. But like any good business, they're trying to diversify in other areas.
For example, the Republican National Committee is accused of sending out mail to West Virginians warning that liberals will ban Bibles if elected in November.
The Republican National Committee Chairman, shock of shocks, said he knew nothing of the mailing.
The mailing is hardly surprising "We represent good, decent American values unlike those hedonistic heretics on the other side" is a standard Republican theme. Trying to convince religious people that Christians are a horrifically persecuted population menaced by atheists and merchants of tolerance (and related sins) is merely an extension of that strategy.
They need to rev up the theocracy brigade. Convincing the fundamentalists Christians, who represent at least 40% of the population, that they'll be martyred out of existence if the wrong guys get elected is a great way to get them to the polls.
For example, the Republican National Committee is accused of sending out mail to West Virginians warning that liberals will ban Bibles if elected in November.
The Republican National Committee Chairman, shock of shocks, said he knew nothing of the mailing.
The mailing is hardly surprising "We represent good, decent American values unlike those hedonistic heretics on the other side" is a standard Republican theme. Trying to convince religious people that Christians are a horrifically persecuted population menaced by atheists and merchants of tolerance (and related sins) is merely an extension of that strategy.
They need to rev up the theocracy brigade. Convincing the fundamentalists Christians, who represent at least 40% of the population, that they'll be martyred out of existence if the wrong guys get elected is a great way to get them to the polls.
The 'liberal' media and the free market
It intrigues me how so many conservatives whine about how 'liberal' Hollywood movies are or how 'liberal' the news media are. Then they'll lecture you on how, in the free market, businesses must cater to their audiences.
Well it makes you wonder: if Hollywood and the news media are putting out such allegedly 'liberal' products and they are still wildly successful industries, then perhaps there are more 'liberals' in America than conservatives would like to admit.
According to conservative opinion, four television networks are 'liberal' (NBC/MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS) and only one is 'fair and balanced.' If that dubious assertion is correct, then is it because there's four times as much demand for 'liberal' news than Fox News [sic]? After all, if conservatives were so numerous, or at least in higher proportion than 1 to 4, wouldn't there be more than a single conservative news channel? Wouldn't there be more conservative films? Don't conservatives watch TV and spend money too?
Or maybe the media and Hollywood just aren't quite as liberal as the Chicken Littles would have you believe.
Well it makes you wonder: if Hollywood and the news media are putting out such allegedly 'liberal' products and they are still wildly successful industries, then perhaps there are more 'liberals' in America than conservatives would like to admit.
According to conservative opinion, four television networks are 'liberal' (NBC/MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS) and only one is 'fair and balanced.' If that dubious assertion is correct, then is it because there's four times as much demand for 'liberal' news than Fox News [sic]? After all, if conservatives were so numerous, or at least in higher proportion than 1 to 4, wouldn't there be more than a single conservative news channel? Wouldn't there be more conservative films? Don't conservatives watch TV and spend money too?
Or maybe the media and Hollywood just aren't quite as liberal as the Chicken Littles would have you believe.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
On opinion polls and the press
In case I haven't mentioned it enough, I hate polls. Actually, it's not so much that I hate polls as I hate how the press uses polls.
Much of the news media, such as it is, loves polls because it gives them an excuse to not have to do real journalism. They can just yammer on for hours about these mythical numbers and pass it off as "analysis." It's much easier than getting fingernails dirty on something less sexy but actually meaningful, like the lack of access to health care by millions of Americans.
Let's say a poll blares that "45% of Americans prefer President Bush, 44% prefer Sen. Kerry and 9% prefer Ralph Nader."
First off, it won't be the poll that blares these numbers, it will be a newspaper or TV headline. Because statisticians will know better. Statisticians know about variation and sample size. They know that polling is an art, not a science.
It will be a print or TV headline because those media are notorious for squeezing the nuance out of everything.
Second, the headline is probably flat out wrong. It's not 45% of Americans or even of all voters who prefer President Bush. It's 45% of those polled in that particular survey in that particular period who prefer the president; that is the demonstrable fact.
If that poll surveyed 1000 people, then all it means is that the poll shows that 450 individuals prefered Bush at the time of the survey, 440 prefered Kerry and 90 preferred Nader.
If this were just a few yapping heads on MSNBC, we could ignore it. But the entire media spends an inordinate amount of time "analyzing" polls instead of doing real news.
Not only should there be fewer stories about polls, but stories about polls should never be on the front page of a newspaper. They should never be the lead story on a news program. For one simple reason: they are not news.
Journalists like to put their hand over their heart and say, "We don't make news, we just report it."
The increasing domination of polls in the so-called news business puts lie to this claim. Newspapers and networks commission polls so they have stories to report. In essence, they ARE inventing the news.
Also see my essay: 530 people support Kerry
Much of the news media, such as it is, loves polls because it gives them an excuse to not have to do real journalism. They can just yammer on for hours about these mythical numbers and pass it off as "analysis." It's much easier than getting fingernails dirty on something less sexy but actually meaningful, like the lack of access to health care by millions of Americans.
Let's say a poll blares that "45% of Americans prefer President Bush, 44% prefer Sen. Kerry and 9% prefer Ralph Nader."
First off, it won't be the poll that blares these numbers, it will be a newspaper or TV headline. Because statisticians will know better. Statisticians know about variation and sample size. They know that polling is an art, not a science.
It will be a print or TV headline because those media are notorious for squeezing the nuance out of everything.
Second, the headline is probably flat out wrong. It's not 45% of Americans or even of all voters who prefer President Bush. It's 45% of those polled in that particular survey in that particular period who prefer the president; that is the demonstrable fact.
If that poll surveyed 1000 people, then all it means is that the poll shows that 450 individuals prefered Bush at the time of the survey, 440 prefered Kerry and 90 preferred Nader.
If this were just a few yapping heads on MSNBC, we could ignore it. But the entire media spends an inordinate amount of time "analyzing" polls instead of doing real news.
Not only should there be fewer stories about polls, but stories about polls should never be on the front page of a newspaper. They should never be the lead story on a news program. For one simple reason: they are not news.
Journalists like to put their hand over their heart and say, "We don't make news, we just report it."
The increasing domination of polls in the so-called news business puts lie to this claim. Newspapers and networks commission polls so they have stories to report. In essence, they ARE inventing the news.
Also see my essay: 530 people support Kerry
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
NY Assembly Speaker admits to gerrymandering
To say that New York state's government is dysfunctional almost makes me sound like a broken record. The NYCO blog, who regularly writes about the morass in Albany, pointed to an interesting piece in the Syracuse Post-Standard.
It mentioned the Democratic primary victory of Assembly candidate Jimmy Meng, of Queens, who hopes to become the first Asian-American elected to the state legislature.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver [a Democrat] said the Legislature intentionally drew the district the first-termer Grodenchik [the incumbent who lost to Meng] represents with the hopes of sending an Asian-American representative to Albany.
"With reapportionment, we clearly had in mind to carve an Asian district and that's what prevailed today," Silver said late [last] Tuesday.
This little throwaway comment is very revealing and demonstrates while he's a terrible advertisement for the New York Democratic Party. As I've said before, Silver not only is an old-style party boss strongman, but he comes across as one. GOP Governor George Pataki probably owes a lot of his success to the fact that he's flattered by comparisons to Silver.
That the legislature is a master of gerrymandering is the most poorly kept secret in state politics. That the speaker would openly admit to gerrymandering, however, is pretty surprising. Usually, gerrymandering is one of those things that is done with a wink and a nod but never talked about openly by its practioners.
The problem for the mess in Albany, I lay blame on the feet of rank and file legislators. Sure, it's easy to pick on Silver and Senate Majority Leader Bruno and, believe me, I know they deserve it. But who are Silver and Bruno? They are elected by rank and file Assemblymen and Senators. They REPRESENT their caucuses.
If they are able to act as little tinpot dictators, it's the rank and file's fault for allowing it. If the Democratic Assemblymen really didn't like how Silver was running things, they'd tell him to fix things or else get voted out. They had the chance to get rid of Silver a few years ago but they didn't have the guts and abandoned Michael Bragman, the insurgent candidate. The rank and file needs to understand that Silver and Bruno are dependent on them, not vice versa.
NYCO doesn't quite agree with me. He wrote:
Yes - but did Bragman really stand for change and good government, or did he just want Silver's throne?
I'm not very convinced that anything really would have changed if he had succeeded in ousting Silver. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, etc. But I agree with you that the problem is not just Silver, but his favored ones and how the rank-and-file legislators don't really feel empowered by their constituents to stand up to them.
I understand his point, but you have to start somewhere.
While Bragman may or may not have been fundamentally different than Silver, his election would've sent a message that the rank-and-file are willing, for once, to assert themselves. They would've asserted that they need to be allowed to do their jobs. That alone would've helped things at least a little bit.
Then Bragman would know that if the rank-and-file were willing to get rid of Silver, they could do the same to him. And most importantly, it would've given the rank-and-file a little confidence to assert themselves by reminding that, contrary to popular belief, the dog can still wag the tail. That alone would've been a start.
It mentioned the Democratic primary victory of Assembly candidate Jimmy Meng, of Queens, who hopes to become the first Asian-American elected to the state legislature.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver [a Democrat] said the Legislature intentionally drew the district the first-termer Grodenchik [the incumbent who lost to Meng] represents with the hopes of sending an Asian-American representative to Albany.
"With reapportionment, we clearly had in mind to carve an Asian district and that's what prevailed today," Silver said late [last] Tuesday.
This little throwaway comment is very revealing and demonstrates while he's a terrible advertisement for the New York Democratic Party. As I've said before, Silver not only is an old-style party boss strongman, but he comes across as one. GOP Governor George Pataki probably owes a lot of his success to the fact that he's flattered by comparisons to Silver.
That the legislature is a master of gerrymandering is the most poorly kept secret in state politics. That the speaker would openly admit to gerrymandering, however, is pretty surprising. Usually, gerrymandering is one of those things that is done with a wink and a nod but never talked about openly by its practioners.
The problem for the mess in Albany, I lay blame on the feet of rank and file legislators. Sure, it's easy to pick on Silver and Senate Majority Leader Bruno and, believe me, I know they deserve it. But who are Silver and Bruno? They are elected by rank and file Assemblymen and Senators. They REPRESENT their caucuses.
If they are able to act as little tinpot dictators, it's the rank and file's fault for allowing it. If the Democratic Assemblymen really didn't like how Silver was running things, they'd tell him to fix things or else get voted out. They had the chance to get rid of Silver a few years ago but they didn't have the guts and abandoned Michael Bragman, the insurgent candidate. The rank and file needs to understand that Silver and Bruno are dependent on them, not vice versa.
NYCO doesn't quite agree with me. He wrote:
Yes - but did Bragman really stand for change and good government, or did he just want Silver's throne?
I'm not very convinced that anything really would have changed if he had succeeded in ousting Silver. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, etc. But I agree with you that the problem is not just Silver, but his favored ones and how the rank-and-file legislators don't really feel empowered by their constituents to stand up to them.
I understand his point, but you have to start somewhere.
While Bragman may or may not have been fundamentally different than Silver, his election would've sent a message that the rank-and-file are willing, for once, to assert themselves. They would've asserted that they need to be allowed to do their jobs. That alone would've helped things at least a little bit.
Then Bragman would know that if the rank-and-file were willing to get rid of Silver, they could do the same to him. And most importantly, it would've given the rank-and-file a little confidence to assert themselves by reminding that, contrary to popular belief, the dog can still wag the tail. That alone would've been a start.
Addendum to the Cat Stevens entry
Many people's initial reaction to the Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam incident is that it was a manifestation of the 'all Muslims are terrorists' mentality that some Americans have. Abiola, over at Foreign Dispatches, points out that it might not be so simple.
The former singer endorsed the death sentence against Salman Rushdie and was accused by the Israeli government of giving large sums of money to the terrorist organization Hamas.
While I don't agree with denying him entry to the US, it's worth considering this. Anyone who encourages killing an author just because he wrote a novel isn't deserving of a lot of sympathy, even from liberal-minded types. Especially from liberal-minded types. George W. Bush or not.
The former singer endorsed the death sentence against Salman Rushdie and was accused by the Israeli government of giving large sums of money to the terrorist organization Hamas.
While I don't agree with denying him entry to the US, it's worth considering this. Anyone who encourages killing an author just because he wrote a novel isn't deserving of a lot of sympathy, even from liberal-minded types. Especially from liberal-minded types. George W. Bush or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)