Thursday, December 30, 2004
Sore Loserman? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002134542_webrossi29.html
Dino Rossi refuses to concede the Washington Governor's race, arguing that there is still uncertainty about the election outcome. It's essential that we disassociate party affiliation from this issue and discuss it in the abstract:
I've redacted party affiliations in a symbolic attempt to cut through the partisan fog and address the issue: Rossi believes that the Washington election was marred by fraud.
If he's correct, he's right, there should be a re-vote, as happenned in Ukraine.
However, the threshold of proof for fraud is very high. In Ukraine, exit polls were what clued in election observers to the fraud taking place, whereas here in the US, because the early exit polls called the presidential race for Kerry, they have been discredited (unfairly) as a partisan tool. Regardless of their scientific validity, we cannot use them, pragmatically speaking (this is extremely vexing to me because exit polls are, I believe, one of the strongest checks and balances of the election process and mechanics that a free democracy can implement).
This leaves us with only audit trails, demographics, and voter complaints as indicators of fraud. Here, we can turn to Ohio to get a sense for where the bar currently lies:
audit trails: I seem to recall reading that 70% of Ohio precincts used mechanical (is, chad-based) machines. The audit process is different from Florida 2000 however because there seems to be a statewide standard for gauging voter intent based on the number of attached corners, etc. Ohio, like Washington, hs state laws that determine under what conditions automatic and m,anual recounts can be performed and who pays for them. In Ohio, the audit process turned up numerous anamolies, but nothing systematic that I am aware of that passes rigorous documentation proof of fraud. Thos eeanamolies do indicate problems with the system however which need to be addressed. The system can be badly vbroken without being fraudulent - but teh end result is the same, citizen votes are not properly counted.
demographics: the number of voting machines per capita was not consistent across the state, disproportionately fewer in heavily populated districts, which were due to the standard demographic and class considerations, the location of the bulk of the minority population (which for various well-understood reasons, predominantly vote for one party or another). Hence, the disparity in machines disproportionately inflicts a handicap on one party rather than the other. But this is not fraud either. Again it does reflect a massive problem that needs fixing, but given that the problem affects one party more than the other, it's unlikely that this will be addressed in a bipartisan manner.
voter complaints: disproportionately speaking, and far more than just population weighting would apply, voter complainst of intimidation occurred in the predominantly black precincts. The map speaks volumes:
There is clearly a systematic campaign of intimidation being carried out here which does qualify as fraud. However, this evidence of fraud is not indicative of magnitude, only pattern. Suppose the map reveals 100 incidents. Does that samplng reflect 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 incidents that went un-reported? Its impossible to know. SO we can acknowledge the evidence of fraud but cannot gauge its impact. The requirement of proof is equally high to say it was a significant effect as to say it was an insignificant effect. The burden of proof falls upon the affected party, so again its not actionable.
So, the burden of proof in Ohio for proving that fraud affcted the election outcome has simply not been met, even though clear proof of fraud does exist. This standard applied to Washington state suggests that Rossi needs to do a lot more than just talk about the "uncertainty" and the "damage" of the electoral process. If he has evidence, now is the time. Otherwise it's time to concede, and his party needs to pressure him accordingly.
OLYMPIA, Wash. - The night before Washington's secretary of state was scheduled to certify {REDACTED] Christine Gregoire as the governor-elect, her {REDACTED] rival Dino Rossi called for a complete re-do of the longest, closest governor's race in state history.
"The uncertainty surrounding this election process isn't just bad for you and me -- it is bad for the entire state. People need to know for sure that the next governor actually won the election," Rossi said Wednesday evening, reading from a letter he sent to Gregoire.
A revote would be the best solution for the people of our state, and would give us a legitimate governorship," the letter added.
I've redacted party affiliations in a symbolic attempt to cut through the partisan fog and address the issue: Rossi believes that the Washington election was marred by fraud.
If he's correct, he's right, there should be a re-vote, as happenned in Ukraine.
However, the threshold of proof for fraud is very high. In Ukraine, exit polls were what clued in election observers to the fraud taking place, whereas here in the US, because the early exit polls called the presidential race for Kerry, they have been discredited (unfairly) as a partisan tool. Regardless of their scientific validity, we cannot use them, pragmatically speaking (this is extremely vexing to me because exit polls are, I believe, one of the strongest checks and balances of the election process and mechanics that a free democracy can implement).
This leaves us with only audit trails, demographics, and voter complaints as indicators of fraud. Here, we can turn to Ohio to get a sense for where the bar currently lies:
audit trails: I seem to recall reading that 70% of Ohio precincts used mechanical (is, chad-based) machines. The audit process is different from Florida 2000 however because there seems to be a statewide standard for gauging voter intent based on the number of attached corners, etc. Ohio, like Washington, hs state laws that determine under what conditions automatic and m,anual recounts can be performed and who pays for them. In Ohio, the audit process turned up numerous anamolies, but nothing systematic that I am aware of that passes rigorous documentation proof of fraud. Thos eeanamolies do indicate problems with the system however which need to be addressed. The system can be badly vbroken without being fraudulent - but teh end result is the same, citizen votes are not properly counted.
demographics: the number of voting machines per capita was not consistent across the state, disproportionately fewer in heavily populated districts, which were due to the standard demographic and class considerations, the location of the bulk of the minority population (which for various well-understood reasons, predominantly vote for one party or another). Hence, the disparity in machines disproportionately inflicts a handicap on one party rather than the other. But this is not fraud either. Again it does reflect a massive problem that needs fixing, but given that the problem affects one party more than the other, it's unlikely that this will be addressed in a bipartisan manner.
voter complaints: disproportionately speaking, and far more than just population weighting would apply, voter complainst of intimidation occurred in the predominantly black precincts. The map speaks volumes:
There is clearly a systematic campaign of intimidation being carried out here which does qualify as fraud. However, this evidence of fraud is not indicative of magnitude, only pattern. Suppose the map reveals 100 incidents. Does that samplng reflect 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 incidents that went un-reported? Its impossible to know. SO we can acknowledge the evidence of fraud but cannot gauge its impact. The requirement of proof is equally high to say it was a significant effect as to say it was an insignificant effect. The burden of proof falls upon the affected party, so again its not actionable.
So, the burden of proof in Ohio for proving that fraud affcted the election outcome has simply not been met, even though clear proof of fraud does exist. This standard applied to Washington state suggests that Rossi needs to do a lot more than just talk about the "uncertainty" and the "damage" of the electoral process. If he has evidence, now is the time. Otherwise it's time to concede, and his party needs to pressure him accordingly.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Media for Purple Folk?
In my previous post, I did a quick and shallow review of conservative talk radio as I left Chicago for the holidays. As an update to that post, I should probably concede that I was harder on Michael Medved than I should have been. I caught another show before turning in the rental car and enjoyed it immensely. He was discussing Iraq with an intellectual who was calling for the United States to withdraw from the Middle East and provide massive reparations to the Iraqi people for "breaking their country". Despite the wide ideological gulf between Medved and the professor, he was civil and asked some good pointed questions. The professor was a much better guest than the guest on the previous show I complained about and was able (IMHO) to explain and defend his position relatively well. I was enjoying the show immensely and I was disappointed that I had to have the car back to Hertz before the show was finished.
For purple staters, I'd recommend Medved on this basis. I felt like I received a good look at both sides of the issues without all the snark or insults. Does anyone have any similar recommendations for talk show hosts (radio and otherwise) that would appeal to people interested in the merits of the debate and not who can scream louder?
For purple staters, I'd recommend Medved on this basis. I felt like I received a good look at both sides of the issues without all the snark or insults. Does anyone have any similar recommendations for talk show hosts (radio and otherwise) that would appeal to people interested in the merits of the debate and not who can scream louder?
The People Have Spoken http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4127203.stm
BBC reports that it's official. Congratulations to Viktor Yushchenko and, more importantly, to the Ukrainian people who forced the powers that be to conduct an honest election. It doesn't hurt to have 12,000 international observers on hand either. Another nation has taken a positive step towards freedom and democracy. Yushchenko: "We were independent for 14 years, today we became free."
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Since it's Christmas http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/opinion/22kristof.html?oref=login&oref=login&th
First of all, Aziz has graciously invited me to insert a few of my thoughts onto Dean Nation, and the super-majority of those thoughts are conservative and right-of-center. If you don't know me, most of my writings have darkened the halls of Tacitus. So thanks for the podium, Aziz. You're one of the smart and reasonable ones (and not just because you invited me on board). Another member of the group of smart and reasonable liberals is Nicholas Kristof. Like with his opinion on Sam Brownback, there's probably not a single political issue that we agree on, but for our common concern for humanitarian causes. What his piece tells me is that he's a good guy, open-minded, intellectually honest and does not let his political ideology blind him from from seeing admirable features in those he deeply disagrees with. So thanks, Nick. I may rip you a new one next week but you have my respect. So in that spirit of bonhomie, let me wish you all a Merry Christmas.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Why is AM talk radio so bad?
For the holidays, I drove my girlfriend home from Chicago to eastern Iowa. On my way out of Chicago, I turned on the AM dial to see what was going on in the talk radio world. Since I rarely listen to radio in my daily life, I always enjoy seeing what's on the AM dial. When younger, my uncle would listen to it as we went out on windmill jobs, so it's always interesting to me to listen to how much has has changed, and how much is still the same...
Listening on WIND 560, I managed to catch the tail end of the Michael Medved show, portions of Michael Savage, and the entire Michael Reagan show. Of the three, Medved was the most entertaining. He had some professor of communications on the show who he and his listeners hammered for his liberal views. Despite my sympathies for the professor's views, the prof poorly defended them and was easily manipulated into falling into the liberal professor stereotype.
The Michael Savage show was a "best of" show, where there were not any callers and the show was a collection of Savage's rants from his previous shows. I found Savage's rants poorly reasoned and more about Savage proving how angry he was rather than covering a topic. (I particularly tired of Savage's rants against the media and how Comcast was responsible for cop killing because it distributes rap videos.) In Savage's defense, this was a collage of some of his previous stuff, and his regular show may not be as angry all the time. However, I did find the montage grating and unpleasant, and I turned off the show after a while.
Finally, I listened to Michael Reagan. He wasn't as angry as Savage, but on many levels his show was worse. The man spent thirty minutes railing against Muslims on the basis of the existence of a Muslim brotherhood who has been advocating the creation of an Islamic state through legal democratic means. He was worried about the society's violent past and his belief that the brotherhood was advocating violence to create political change. Of course, in th article he was continually citing, he failed to mention the portions about the internal conflict in American Islam where moderate Muslims have distanced themselves from the brotherhood.
Now, I don't know what other listeners to talk radio feel, but in this short amount of time, and across shows, it became clear talk radio is less about "talk" and more about ranting about one topic or the other, reason and evidence be damned. That said, here are a couple ways that this is accomplished:
1. Picking poor people to defend the opposing views on the air. Medved had a terrible guest on his show defending the opposing liberal view. I was listening to the professor (Shepard Bliss, for those curious) try to defend his views and he was unable to. I realize that if you're not on the radio all the time, this may be difficult. However, it seemed absurd that the professor was so easily manipulated into making Medved's points. I looked to my girlfriend and just shook my head. Are there not any radio-savvy liberal guests out there?
2. Are there any radio hosts out there who can present the opposing side without twisting it or spinning it? In Reagan's case, he cherrypicks from the Chicago Tribune report to make a case for the existence of a violent Muslim Freemason-like society, but fails to mention any of conflict between moderate and conservative Muslims that is more prominent in the article than the group's violent past. After making the "case" that this group is violent and a threat to America, a Muslim calls him on it and Reagan went on the offensive, berating the caller for not denouncing the violent Muslims and insinuating that the caller was just as guilty of Muslims' crimes because of his silence on the issue.
Is there any conservative talk radio that does not rely on these gimmicks to make a strong case for conservative values? I consider myself in the moderate camp, and these shows did nothing but push me to sympathize with the opposing views because of the poor and dishonest handling of the topics by conservative talk show hosts.
(UPDATE: edited by Aziz for the xtended Entry...)
Listening on WIND 560, I managed to catch the tail end of the Michael Medved show, portions of Michael Savage, and the entire Michael Reagan show. Of the three, Medved was the most entertaining. He had some professor of communications on the show who he and his listeners hammered for his liberal views. Despite my sympathies for the professor's views, the prof poorly defended them and was easily manipulated into falling into the liberal professor stereotype.
The Michael Savage show was a "best of" show, where there were not any callers and the show was a collection of Savage's rants from his previous shows. I found Savage's rants poorly reasoned and more about Savage proving how angry he was rather than covering a topic. (I particularly tired of Savage's rants against the media and how Comcast was responsible for cop killing because it distributes rap videos.) In Savage's defense, this was a collage of some of his previous stuff, and his regular show may not be as angry all the time. However, I did find the montage grating and unpleasant, and I turned off the show after a while.
Finally, I listened to Michael Reagan. He wasn't as angry as Savage, but on many levels his show was worse. The man spent thirty minutes railing against Muslims on the basis of the existence of a Muslim brotherhood who has been advocating the creation of an Islamic state through legal democratic means. He was worried about the society's violent past and his belief that the brotherhood was advocating violence to create political change. Of course, in th article he was continually citing, he failed to mention the portions about the internal conflict in American Islam where moderate Muslims have distanced themselves from the brotherhood.
Now, I don't know what other listeners to talk radio feel, but in this short amount of time, and across shows, it became clear talk radio is less about "talk" and more about ranting about one topic or the other, reason and evidence be damned. That said, here are a couple ways that this is accomplished:
1. Picking poor people to defend the opposing views on the air. Medved had a terrible guest on his show defending the opposing liberal view. I was listening to the professor (Shepard Bliss, for those curious) try to defend his views and he was unable to. I realize that if you're not on the radio all the time, this may be difficult. However, it seemed absurd that the professor was so easily manipulated into making Medved's points. I looked to my girlfriend and just shook my head. Are there not any radio-savvy liberal guests out there?
2. Are there any radio hosts out there who can present the opposing side without twisting it or spinning it? In Reagan's case, he cherrypicks from the Chicago Tribune report to make a case for the existence of a violent Muslim Freemason-like society, but fails to mention any of conflict between moderate and conservative Muslims that is more prominent in the article than the group's violent past. After making the "case" that this group is violent and a threat to America, a Muslim calls him on it and Reagan went on the offensive, berating the caller for not denouncing the violent Muslims and insinuating that the caller was just as guilty of Muslims' crimes because of his silence on the issue.
Is there any conservative talk radio that does not rely on these gimmicks to make a strong case for conservative values? I consider myself in the moderate camp, and these shows did nothing but push me to sympathize with the opposing views because of the poor and dishonest handling of the topics by conservative talk show hosts.
(UPDATE: edited by Aziz for the xtended Entry...)
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Is voting obsolete?
Matthew is on to something here:
OK, he is just (tounge-in-cheek) talking about primaries, but if you think about it, this could equally apply to national elections as well. Bear with me for a moment...
There are several major problems with voting :
1. Fraud increases the margin of error, which means in a highly polarized electorate, may become the same order of magnitude as the margin of victory, in which case the outcome of the election is essentially random to begin with. Technology is one solution, but is susceptible to funding, human error, and fraud of a different nature.
2. Victory requires a majority of the electorate alone, not the population, which means in a low-turnout scenario the winner can not claim a true mandate of consent to be governed. There is selection bias in the electorate because they are the ones who have the will/free time to go stand in line for hours to excercise their franchise.
3. The geography-centric structure of the electoral college means that some states are swing states whic garner disproprtionately more attention from candidates than others, which results in skewed policies such as the Farm Bill that do not benefit the nation as a whole.
A truly random sampling of voters, with N chosen high enough to give a margin of error arbitrarily low, would make it essentially impossible to perpetrate fraud while still delivering higher fidelity of results than is possible with the present system. Further, the selection bias is avoided because the vote can be done by mail or phone to a truly random cohort. Finally, the geographic considerations are mooted as candidates will have to campaign nationally on issues of truly national interest since they can no longer assume that their plurality will hail from a specific subset of regions.
What's the flaw?
NOTE: the idea is not new. I believe it was Asimov who wrote a short story where society needed only a single voter to determine the electoral outcome, assisted by a powerful computer that took the voter data point into account along with other social variables.
Also, I am deliberately avoiding including actual examples such as the role of exit polling in detecting Ukraine fraud, the well-documented racial voter suppression in Cuyahoga County, and the drama of the WA governor's race. Lets discuss the thought experiment in the absence of partisan bias.
Indeed, the whole voting concept may be outdated. You could just get together a list of every registered Democrat in the country, then take a statistically valid random sample of 1,000 or so of these people fly them all to a big hotel in Dayton (shades of Balkan diplomacy), and tell them they're not leaving until some candidate has the support of 600 people. Important elected officials, interest group leaders, and consultant types could make themselves available to hang around the premises and offer their off-the-record opinions.
OK, he is just (tounge-in-cheek) talking about primaries, but if you think about it, this could equally apply to national elections as well. Bear with me for a moment...
There are several major problems with voting :
1. Fraud increases the margin of error, which means in a highly polarized electorate, may become the same order of magnitude as the margin of victory, in which case the outcome of the election is essentially random to begin with. Technology is one solution, but is susceptible to funding, human error, and fraud of a different nature.
2. Victory requires a majority of the electorate alone, not the population, which means in a low-turnout scenario the winner can not claim a true mandate of consent to be governed. There is selection bias in the electorate because they are the ones who have the will/free time to go stand in line for hours to excercise their franchise.
3. The geography-centric structure of the electoral college means that some states are swing states whic garner disproprtionately more attention from candidates than others, which results in skewed policies such as the Farm Bill that do not benefit the nation as a whole.
A truly random sampling of voters, with N chosen high enough to give a margin of error arbitrarily low, would make it essentially impossible to perpetrate fraud while still delivering higher fidelity of results than is possible with the present system. Further, the selection bias is avoided because the vote can be done by mail or phone to a truly random cohort. Finally, the geographic considerations are mooted as candidates will have to campaign nationally on issues of truly national interest since they can no longer assume that their plurality will hail from a specific subset of regions.
What's the flaw?
NOTE: the idea is not new. I believe it was Asimov who wrote a short story where society needed only a single voter to determine the electoral outcome, assisted by a powerful computer that took the voter data point into account along with other social variables.
Also, I am deliberately avoiding including actual examples such as the role of exit polling in detecting Ukraine fraud, the well-documented racial voter suppression in Cuyahoga County, and the drama of the WA governor's race. Lets discuss the thought experiment in the absence of partisan bias.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Spirit of America http://www.spiritofamerica.net/challenge/i/407
I'd like to remind everyone that the deadline for donating to the Spirit of America's "Friends of Iraq Blogger Challenge" is tonight, Dec 15th at midnight. Please do think about kicking in 5 or 10 bucks if you can spare it to help buy Iraqi children toys, fund Arabic-language blogging tools, and other worthy endeavors. More details on what projects the Spirit of America funds is below the fold...
I've set up a donation link, whose modest donation totals can be tracked here under "City of Brass". Join me and let's add our voice to the chorus promoting success in Iraq and help to the Iraqi people, to whom we owe no small moral debt.
The list of projects is below - I have designated that the funds raised by my link above can be spent as the charity deems best. If one of these appeals to you more than the others, however, you can sign up yourself and donate directly to one of these causes only.
411th Civil Affairs - Re-equip Universities in Baquba, Iraq
Help Army assist 2 universities damaged by terrorist fighting
Library Books for Iraqi Children
Help kids who want to read and learn with books for children's libraries.
Friends of Democracy - the Iraq Democracy Project
Contribute to the success of free elections and democracy in Iraq.
Iraq's Universities
Support Iraq's next generation leaders by re-equipping higher education.
Arabic Blogging Tool - Viral Freedom
Support independent new media and free expression in Iraq and the Arab world.
Marines and SeaBees Seek Tools for Iraqi Tradesmen
Help those who make a commitment to improving their country.
Sewing Machines For Women in Ramadi
Putting economic power in women's hands
Iraqi TV in Al-Anbar
Spirit of America Helps U.S. Marines Equip TV Stations in Iraq
Operation Snapshot
Marines need Polaroid cameras and film to build goodwill and break down barriers in Iraq.
I've set up a donation link, whose modest donation totals can be tracked here under "City of Brass". Join me and let's add our voice to the chorus promoting success in Iraq and help to the Iraqi people, to whom we owe no small moral debt.
The list of projects is below - I have designated that the funds raised by my link above can be spent as the charity deems best. If one of these appeals to you more than the others, however, you can sign up yourself and donate directly to one of these causes only.
411th Civil Affairs - Re-equip Universities in Baquba, Iraq
Help Army assist 2 universities damaged by terrorist fighting
Library Books for Iraqi Children
Help kids who want to read and learn with books for children's libraries.
Friends of Democracy - the Iraq Democracy Project
Contribute to the success of free elections and democracy in Iraq.
Iraq's Universities
Support Iraq's next generation leaders by re-equipping higher education.
Arabic Blogging Tool - Viral Freedom
Support independent new media and free expression in Iraq and the Arab world.
Marines and SeaBees Seek Tools for Iraqi Tradesmen
Help those who make a commitment to improving their country.
Sewing Machines For Women in Ramadi
Putting economic power in women's hands
Iraqi TV in Al-Anbar
Spirit of America Helps U.S. Marines Equip TV Stations in Iraq
Operation Snapshot
Marines need Polaroid cameras and film to build goodwill and break down barriers in Iraq.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Koufax Awards http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001502.html
Forget ye not the Koufax Awards.
Monday, December 13, 2004
The Best of All Likely Worlds
Update: Cross-posted over at Gene Expression.
If you are a fan of the history of ideas you will know that Voltaire once mocked Leibniz's contention that we live in "the best of all possible worlds." Now, Leibniz was a very intelligent man, the inventor of the useful calculus notation and a world-rank philosopher, aside from being professional trained as a lawyer, he dabbling in mine engineering and his day-to-day consisted of diplomacy and archiving to pay the bills. So, it makes sense that some of the spirit of Leibniz lives on today. For many human beings, though not asserting that this is the best of all possible worlds, believe that we can (with mild effort) attain the best of all possible worlds. I believe that such utopianism is folly, though the intentions might be laudable, the intersection between political and attempts to enforce the best of all possible worlds (whatever norms you might hold up as "ideal") and human nature have been catastrophic. Rather, what we can hope to achieve in our lives is the best of all likely worlds, the likely being contingent upon the constraints of time and place.
Perhaps my outlook is shaped by the fact that I am something of a "gene nut." One of the most common arguments trotted out against Creationists is that the anatomy of many species indicates a "good enough" solution. An ideally "optimal" design simply does not exist, "optimal" is contingent upon variables which actually shift in flux as a function of time or space. As an example, the human body's vareigated immune system deploys a "scout" in the form of the Major Histocompability Complex (MHC), the forerunner of killer T-cells which clean up nasty pathogens that wander into the orbit of any organism. The character of the MHC (its phenotype) is controlled by what are termed the HLA locii, that is, a particular configuration of its genotype. There are multiple HLA genes and each of these come various flavors, or polymorphisms. The short of it is that what you need to know is that the presence of multiple forms indicates that diversity is selected for. In fact, diversity is so important on these locii that various HLA forms are transpecies, you might have an HLA profile more similar to a chimpanzee than your cousin because the genes are that ancient. The diversity of the HLA genes is almost certainly a function of the fact that they are constantly assailed by a host of hyper-evolving pathogens. Just when the immune system becomes "perfect" at neutralizing one threat another pops up. The various forms are simply part of a whole array of tools that the body keeps on hand in the case of novel attacks. One interesting idea, posited by the late biologist William D. Hamilton, is that at any one given time a particular conformation of HLA locii might more "optimal," but since time does not stay still natural selection will never move that conformation to the species norm, that is, fixation, instead an oscillating cycle will perpetuate the diversity.
What does this have to do with "The Best of All Likely Worlds" and Dean nation? In "The Best of All Possible Worlds" perhaps our HLA profiles could always be optimally tuned for each generation, that is, if we had perfect information about the evolutionary trajectory of any given pathogen. Unfortunately, pathogenic evolution isn't deterministic, so we would be stuck with a probabilistic projection, and of course we do not have perfect information and can only guess at what pathogens might be up to a few years down the line. In this constrained world the human species is characterized by a host of HLA profiles, that is, a diversity of defense strategies, none of which are perfect for any given attack, but which are "good enough" solutions.
So to the second question, what does this have to do with Dean nation? Two points that I can draw by analogy. The first is that if you assume that various political persuasions are HLA forms on various genes, and that America is an organism, an ultimate victory against other forms might be deleterious in the long run. That is, the victory of unilateral militarism and unilateral pacifism are losers in the long run, you need a mix of both strategies, tempered by rational means, to perpetuate general international amity. Additionally, even within the intranational context there are implications. One trend that I have been noting with some hope is the recent Leftish flirtation with federalism. To some extent this is even more opportunistic than conservative adherence to the concept (now that the Right controls the federal government devolution seems less in vogue at that end). Ever since the New Deal the Left & the federal government were closely associated with each other. The Civil Rights revolution might never have happened without the interposition of the federal government between the states and the black protesters. Through the Warren Court there was also an expansion of individual civil liberties at the expense of local control (a trend that has been somewhat curtailed, though most of the substantive gains stand). With the 50 year domination of the Democrats in the legislative branch the federal principle was wholly rational (for Democrats). With the reality of gross barbaric injustice through broad swaths of the country (segregation) the federal principle was wholly just, on the balance.
But I think it is now a time to take a step back and count wins and losses. A republic is a fragile thing, and we've kept it for 200 years. It has scaled surprisingly well, from a polity shaped by the minority of white men who met property qualifications in an oligarchic republic of 2.5 million to a nation, a cultural empire, of 300 million citizens and over 100 million regular voting participants. The imperial presidency is an awesome thing, and the executive branch now has wide and expansive powers. I have watched as many of my friends and acquaintances shudder at the thought of Republican domination of every branch of the federal government, as the Democrat wrought tools of federal dominion now get turned to other purposes. The federal strategy is a winner-take-all gambit, it discounts incrementalism and favors wild oscillations. In concert with the scale of the republic I think this is causing great stress to the health of the polity.
A more relaxed federal state is a mixed solution at best. It is not "The Best of All Possible Worlds," from a liberal perspective much of the south might be characterized by regressive legislation directed against homosexuals, while conservatives might grumble at the legalization of marijuana in the West and gay marriage in the Northeast. But in an age of mobility and the guarantee of basic civil rights I think it is a more tenable position to adhere to even for those who hold universal justice dear. To use another biological analogy, genes might be selfish, but by and large they behave in an altrustic fashion when trapped within an individual because the death of one is the death of all. Absolute short term political victories for any given side, the utilization of massive federal tools in the service of a partisan agenda, might cause so much intraorganismic strife that it is vulnerable to morbidity. And so with our great country.
What does this mean practically? It means I hope the federalist impulse on the Left is not ephemeral, because it still exits rhetorically on the Right. Words and ideas have power, and even though the Right can wield the tools of the federal government many still have a soft spot for devolution. This is a crucial point of leverage because human beings do value principle and consistency in some ineffable fashion. In concert with the reality that the pendulum of power always swings, it might be enough to create a Left-Right alliance toward devolution and a curtailment of federal power, to the better health of the overall republic.
If you are a fan of the history of ideas you will know that Voltaire once mocked Leibniz's contention that we live in "the best of all possible worlds." Now, Leibniz was a very intelligent man, the inventor of the useful calculus notation and a world-rank philosopher, aside from being professional trained as a lawyer, he dabbling in mine engineering and his day-to-day consisted of diplomacy and archiving to pay the bills. So, it makes sense that some of the spirit of Leibniz lives on today. For many human beings, though not asserting that this is the best of all possible worlds, believe that we can (with mild effort) attain the best of all possible worlds. I believe that such utopianism is folly, though the intentions might be laudable, the intersection between political and attempts to enforce the best of all possible worlds (whatever norms you might hold up as "ideal") and human nature have been catastrophic. Rather, what we can hope to achieve in our lives is the best of all likely worlds, the likely being contingent upon the constraints of time and place.
Perhaps my outlook is shaped by the fact that I am something of a "gene nut." One of the most common arguments trotted out against Creationists is that the anatomy of many species indicates a "good enough" solution. An ideally "optimal" design simply does not exist, "optimal" is contingent upon variables which actually shift in flux as a function of time or space. As an example, the human body's vareigated immune system deploys a "scout" in the form of the Major Histocompability Complex (MHC), the forerunner of killer T-cells which clean up nasty pathogens that wander into the orbit of any organism. The character of the MHC (its phenotype) is controlled by what are termed the HLA locii, that is, a particular configuration of its genotype. There are multiple HLA genes and each of these come various flavors, or polymorphisms. The short of it is that what you need to know is that the presence of multiple forms indicates that diversity is selected for. In fact, diversity is so important on these locii that various HLA forms are transpecies, you might have an HLA profile more similar to a chimpanzee than your cousin because the genes are that ancient. The diversity of the HLA genes is almost certainly a function of the fact that they are constantly assailed by a host of hyper-evolving pathogens. Just when the immune system becomes "perfect" at neutralizing one threat another pops up. The various forms are simply part of a whole array of tools that the body keeps on hand in the case of novel attacks. One interesting idea, posited by the late biologist William D. Hamilton, is that at any one given time a particular conformation of HLA locii might more "optimal," but since time does not stay still natural selection will never move that conformation to the species norm, that is, fixation, instead an oscillating cycle will perpetuate the diversity.
What does this have to do with "The Best of All Likely Worlds" and Dean nation? In "The Best of All Possible Worlds" perhaps our HLA profiles could always be optimally tuned for each generation, that is, if we had perfect information about the evolutionary trajectory of any given pathogen. Unfortunately, pathogenic evolution isn't deterministic, so we would be stuck with a probabilistic projection, and of course we do not have perfect information and can only guess at what pathogens might be up to a few years down the line. In this constrained world the human species is characterized by a host of HLA profiles, that is, a diversity of defense strategies, none of which are perfect for any given attack, but which are "good enough" solutions.
So to the second question, what does this have to do with Dean nation? Two points that I can draw by analogy. The first is that if you assume that various political persuasions are HLA forms on various genes, and that America is an organism, an ultimate victory against other forms might be deleterious in the long run. That is, the victory of unilateral militarism and unilateral pacifism are losers in the long run, you need a mix of both strategies, tempered by rational means, to perpetuate general international amity. Additionally, even within the intranational context there are implications. One trend that I have been noting with some hope is the recent Leftish flirtation with federalism. To some extent this is even more opportunistic than conservative adherence to the concept (now that the Right controls the federal government devolution seems less in vogue at that end). Ever since the New Deal the Left & the federal government were closely associated with each other. The Civil Rights revolution might never have happened without the interposition of the federal government between the states and the black protesters. Through the Warren Court there was also an expansion of individual civil liberties at the expense of local control (a trend that has been somewhat curtailed, though most of the substantive gains stand). With the 50 year domination of the Democrats in the legislative branch the federal principle was wholly rational (for Democrats). With the reality of gross barbaric injustice through broad swaths of the country (segregation) the federal principle was wholly just, on the balance.
But I think it is now a time to take a step back and count wins and losses. A republic is a fragile thing, and we've kept it for 200 years. It has scaled surprisingly well, from a polity shaped by the minority of white men who met property qualifications in an oligarchic republic of 2.5 million to a nation, a cultural empire, of 300 million citizens and over 100 million regular voting participants. The imperial presidency is an awesome thing, and the executive branch now has wide and expansive powers. I have watched as many of my friends and acquaintances shudder at the thought of Republican domination of every branch of the federal government, as the Democrat wrought tools of federal dominion now get turned to other purposes. The federal strategy is a winner-take-all gambit, it discounts incrementalism and favors wild oscillations. In concert with the scale of the republic I think this is causing great stress to the health of the polity.
A more relaxed federal state is a mixed solution at best. It is not "The Best of All Possible Worlds," from a liberal perspective much of the south might be characterized by regressive legislation directed against homosexuals, while conservatives might grumble at the legalization of marijuana in the West and gay marriage in the Northeast. But in an age of mobility and the guarantee of basic civil rights I think it is a more tenable position to adhere to even for those who hold universal justice dear. To use another biological analogy, genes might be selfish, but by and large they behave in an altrustic fashion when trapped within an individual because the death of one is the death of all. Absolute short term political victories for any given side, the utilization of massive federal tools in the service of a partisan agenda, might cause so much intraorganismic strife that it is vulnerable to morbidity. And so with our great country.
What does this mean practically? It means I hope the federalist impulse on the Left is not ephemeral, because it still exits rhetorically on the Right. Words and ideas have power, and even though the Right can wield the tools of the federal government many still have a soft spot for devolution. This is a crucial point of leverage because human beings do value principle and consistency in some ineffable fashion. In concert with the reality that the pendulum of power always swings, it might be enough to create a Left-Right alliance toward devolution and a curtailment of federal power, to the better health of the overall republic.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Social Security Privatization: no free lunch http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_12/005280.php
Kevin Drum admirably snd succinctly illustrates the paradox at the heart of so-called social security "privatization" proposals. The key point is that Social Security will run out of money in the trust fund by 2042 if GDP growth is assumed to be 1.8% or less. But privatization schemes require robust stock market growth (5% or more) for them to provide benefits. So the key question for pro-privatization advocates is:
The answer is unlikely to be yes. Harry Reid put it bluntly on Meet the Press this sunday - the point of Privatization schemes is not to save Social Security, but to undermine it, with the goal of destroying it outright.
Social Security is not in any internal danger (unlike Medicare, which of course was expanded irresponsibly under President Bush's aegis last term).
Are there any plausible scenarios in which long-term real GDP growth is less than 2% but long-term real returns (capital gains plus dividends) on stock portfolios are well over 5%?
The answer is unlikely to be yes. Harry Reid put it bluntly on Meet the Press this sunday - the point of Privatization schemes is not to save Social Security, but to undermine it, with the goal of destroying it outright.
Social Security is not in any internal danger (unlike Medicare, which of course was expanded irresponsibly under President Bush's aegis last term).
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Changing of the guard
Q. What do the United Nations, the NAACP, and the Palestinian Authority all have in common?
A. They all are facing a critical decision point in terms of future leadership. Doverspa makes the case for Bill Cosby to lead the NAACP, and Glenn Reynolds was the champion of Vaclav Havel to lead the United Nations (as the chorus of calls for Kofi Annan to resign grow international and bipartisan).
For the Palestinians, Arafat is already gone, and either way the election goes, to the Palestinian equivalent of Howard Dean (Marwan Bargouti) or John Kerry (Mahmoud Abbas), it will represent a rejection of the insider corruption that characterized Arafat's rule. Hopefully.
This represents a season of potential change, at key nexuses of domestic and international politics. What will the repercussions be? Somehow it seems like a fresh wind blowing out stale air.
A. They all are facing a critical decision point in terms of future leadership. Doverspa makes the case for Bill Cosby to lead the NAACP, and Glenn Reynolds was the champion of Vaclav Havel to lead the United Nations (as the chorus of calls for Kofi Annan to resign grow international and bipartisan).
For the Palestinians, Arafat is already gone, and either way the election goes, to the Palestinian equivalent of Howard Dean (Marwan Bargouti) or John Kerry (Mahmoud Abbas), it will represent a rejection of the insider corruption that characterized Arafat's rule. Hopefully.
This represents a season of potential change, at key nexuses of domestic and international politics. What will the repercussions be? Somehow it seems like a fresh wind blowing out stale air.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Dean to announce on Wednesday http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/005624.html
From Joe Rospars (a Dean Nation alumni) at the O-blog comes word that Dean is set to make a major announcement about "the future of [the Democratic] Party" on Wednesday. The DNC chairmanship is not explicitly mentioned, but you can read between the lines. Click extended entry to read the post, and my comments:
I've seen plenty of glee from the Rightsphere about the prospect of a Dean candidacy, but the fact remains that Dean was the single candidate that Rove and team were genuinely afraid of. It was Kerry, Vietnam baggage and patrician stereotype, who they wanted to face in November, and they demonstrated that even a war hero wasn't immune to the slime machine. Dean would have faced the same slime, but he would have fought back - and he would have run a true 50-state campaign.
Dean for DNC is something that the Right may lampoon as the Democrat's increasing political irrelevance, but I've seen this rhetoric before. They have a vision of Dean grounded firmly in straw.
But Howard Dean, as DNC Chair, would be a landmark event in American politics. I have my gripes about the campaign he ran, and their use of the internet, but the Dean campaign was still the most innovative and receptive to evolution. Kerry represented a fallback from activism, Meetups, and grassroots, relying instead on 527s to do the legwork and treating his inherited internet netroots as a big money machine. It's far more than that. And under Dean, the DNC will have a higher probability of actually empowering the grassroots to exert oversight of the political process.
Dean to Speak Wednesday on the Future of Our Party
Over the past month, as he always has, Governor Dean has been listening to what Democrats, independents, and regular people across the country have to say.
On Wednesday, December 8, at The George Washington University, Governor Dean will speak about a vision for the future of our party.
He'll be speaking at the Jack Morton Auditorium in the Media and Public Affairs building at Noon.
We'll be streaming the speech live here on the blog and at democracyforamerica.com.
More details to come over the next 24 hours ...
UPDATE: The time of the speech has been changed to 12 Noon on the same day, this Wednesday.
Posted by Joe Rospars at 12:04 AM
I've seen plenty of glee from the Rightsphere about the prospect of a Dean candidacy, but the fact remains that Dean was the single candidate that Rove and team were genuinely afraid of. It was Kerry, Vietnam baggage and patrician stereotype, who they wanted to face in November, and they demonstrated that even a war hero wasn't immune to the slime machine. Dean would have faced the same slime, but he would have fought back - and he would have run a true 50-state campaign.
Dean for DNC is something that the Right may lampoon as the Democrat's increasing political irrelevance, but I've seen this rhetoric before. They have a vision of Dean grounded firmly in straw.
But Howard Dean, as DNC Chair, would be a landmark event in American politics. I have my gripes about the campaign he ran, and their use of the internet, but the Dean campaign was still the most innovative and receptive to evolution. Kerry represented a fallback from activism, Meetups, and grassroots, relying instead on 527s to do the legwork and treating his inherited internet netroots as a big money machine. It's far more than that. And under Dean, the DNC will have a higher probability of actually empowering the grassroots to exert oversight of the political process.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Bill Cosby should lead the NAACP
*Thank you to Aziz for inviting me to post this on Dean Nation, I am a regular contributor and editor at RedState.org*
NAACP President Mfume stepped down as leader this week. His 9 years were mostly an organizational success bringing the group out of bankruptcy and regaining national notoreity. However, the infamously bad relations between the NAACP and President Bush led to the President skipping offers to speak with the most well-known civil rights group in the country. The Chairman of the Board Julian Bond's anti-Bush tirade led to an ongoing IRS investigation about the organizations apolitical status.
Mfume may be pondering a run for Senate in Maryland if Senator Sarbanes steps down in 2006, but more immediately the NAACP needs a new leader. Names are flying, but one keeps creeping up as an acceptable choice across the spectrum... Bill Cosby.
Mr. Cosby vaulted back into the media with a controversial speech at the NAACP's commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. The Board of Eduation of Topeka, KS. His characterizations offended some people, but the underlying message of personal responsibility, family values, and prioritizing education eliciting knowing nodes from white and black communities. Since that speech, he has taken to a national "tough-love" tour promoting his ideas. He isn't sitting down anytime soon.
So naturally, his name is floating around as a possible successor to Mr. Mfume. Some conservatives have mentioned Colin Powell. But I think the best choice for the NAACP would be to go with Mr. Cosby. He is a known and active Democrat which is the right choice to make when your organization is purporting to represent all black Americans who are overwhelmingly Democrats. However, he is no shrill. He is respected on all sides of the aisle and I bet the President would gladly accept an invitation to speak with Mr. Cosby at the NAACP (although Mr. Bond will still be around it seems).
Mr. Cosby could use his celebrity status to reclaim some of the original stature for the NAACP. Furthermore, he could balance the fight against lingering racism and the new fight for fixing black communities from the ground up. By addressing both the external forces that harbor racist sentiments and the internal problems that lead to crime, poverty, and fatherless children, Mr. Cosby could steer the NAACP onto a still liberal course that is acceptable to a wider array of people. That would be good for Mr. Cosby, great for the NAACP, and absolutely wonderful for areas like my African-American neighborhood. Choose wisely, NAACP, you have a great opportunity in front of you.
(Cross posted at RedState.org)
NAACP President Mfume stepped down as leader this week. His 9 years were mostly an organizational success bringing the group out of bankruptcy and regaining national notoreity. However, the infamously bad relations between the NAACP and President Bush led to the President skipping offers to speak with the most well-known civil rights group in the country. The Chairman of the Board Julian Bond's anti-Bush tirade led to an ongoing IRS investigation about the organizations apolitical status.
Mfume may be pondering a run for Senate in Maryland if Senator Sarbanes steps down in 2006, but more immediately the NAACP needs a new leader. Names are flying, but one keeps creeping up as an acceptable choice across the spectrum... Bill Cosby.
Mr. Cosby vaulted back into the media with a controversial speech at the NAACP's commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. The Board of Eduation of Topeka, KS. His characterizations offended some people, but the underlying message of personal responsibility, family values, and prioritizing education eliciting knowing nodes from white and black communities. Since that speech, he has taken to a national "tough-love" tour promoting his ideas. He isn't sitting down anytime soon.
So naturally, his name is floating around as a possible successor to Mr. Mfume. Some conservatives have mentioned Colin Powell. But I think the best choice for the NAACP would be to go with Mr. Cosby. He is a known and active Democrat which is the right choice to make when your organization is purporting to represent all black Americans who are overwhelmingly Democrats. However, he is no shrill. He is respected on all sides of the aisle and I bet the President would gladly accept an invitation to speak with Mr. Cosby at the NAACP (although Mr. Bond will still be around it seems).
Mr. Cosby could use his celebrity status to reclaim some of the original stature for the NAACP. Furthermore, he could balance the fight against lingering racism and the new fight for fixing black communities from the ground up. By addressing both the external forces that harbor racist sentiments and the internal problems that lead to crime, poverty, and fatherless children, Mr. Cosby could steer the NAACP onto a still liberal course that is acceptable to a wider array of people. That would be good for Mr. Cosby, great for the NAACP, and absolutely wonderful for areas like my African-American neighborhood. Choose wisely, NAACP, you have a great opportunity in front of you.
(Cross posted at RedState.org)
In true dialectical fashion
Michael Ledeen writes that the Left is dead. As a polemic, it is well-crafted. But does it realy make sense?
Interesting read on history, but I disagree. If anything the Left has been the cause for reduced class tensions - because only via the Left has the middle class propspered (the rise of unions, wage and labor laws, consumer protection, regulation, etc). If you hark back to the era of unrovaled dominance of eth Right, ie that of President LcKinney and Tamany Hall, you see that class hatred was entrenched and corporatism rampant. It took the Left - in the person of Teddy Roosevelt, yes, a Republican - to argue for Progressive ideals and to make it possible for the average working Joe to actually make a living without backbreaking labor and indentured servitude.
Ultimately, Ledeen's vision of what the Left actually represents ia a straw man of immense scope. But the very things he lauds America for - especially the personal liberty enjoyed by the common man - are because of struggles left of center, not in spite of them.
If there is going to be a new concensus, it needs to reject any argument which seeks to reinterpret the history of social struggle towards social justice in this country as a partisan screed. Ledeen is a dinosaur in this respect.
America had very little of the class hatred that dominated Europe for so long; American workers wanted to get rich, and believed they could. Leftist Europeans — and the bulk of the American intellectual elite — believed that only state control by a radical party could set their societies on the road to equality.
The success of America was thus a devastating blow to the Left.
Interesting read on history, but I disagree. If anything the Left has been the cause for reduced class tensions - because only via the Left has the middle class propspered (the rise of unions, wage and labor laws, consumer protection, regulation, etc). If you hark back to the era of unrovaled dominance of eth Right, ie that of President LcKinney and Tamany Hall, you see that class hatred was entrenched and corporatism rampant. It took the Left - in the person of Teddy Roosevelt, yes, a Republican - to argue for Progressive ideals and to make it possible for the average working Joe to actually make a living without backbreaking labor and indentured servitude.
Ultimately, Ledeen's vision of what the Left actually represents ia a straw man of immense scope. But the very things he lauds America for - especially the personal liberty enjoyed by the common man - are because of struggles left of center, not in spite of them.
If there is going to be a new concensus, it needs to reject any argument which seeks to reinterpret the history of social struggle towards social justice in this country as a partisan screed. Ledeen is a dinosaur in this respect.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
