The Dissenting Indian

Collection of videos

2011-12-27T01:17:00.003-07:00

My favored method is Twitter or Tumblr, but neither provides the ability to combine multiple videos into one post, AFAIK. So here goes:

Prabhudeva, Kadhalan (Urvasi, Urvasi):

Prabhudeva, Gentleman (Chikku bukku... THE BEST! And Gauthami is BEAUTIFUL!)

[Key phrase: "If we ride a bike, you want a motorbike; if we ride a motorbike, you want a Maruti car!...If we wear jeans, you want baggy pants; if we wear baggy pants, you want a veshti!"

Also: The coolie, who is Prabhudeva's rival, is...Prabhudeva's brother, Raju Sundaram!]

Another Prabhudeva classic from Kadhalan (Mukkala, Mukkabala):

OOOOOH URMI!!! Rangeela (Tanha, Tanha):

(Confession: I once owned a pair of golden-colored pants and a black shirt with purple floral print accents, which I thought looked awesome. I was 17 or 18.)

Another video from Rangeela, Aamir Khan and Urmi (Kya karen, kya na karen):

[Key phrase: "On one hand, I I love her... on the other, I am afraid to tell her, fearing rejection!"]

Good night!

Managing conflicts of interest

2011-07-05T02:12:00.003-06:00

A writer, Kim Brittingham, offers writers $200 to write a piece about her new book in various well-known periodicals. Mridu Khullar-Relph asks - does this go against journalists' code of ethics? Apparently, such practices - availing of free boarding/food in exchange for write-ups - are common with freelancers and the travel industry.

So, as Ms Khullar-Relph asks:

How do you write about an establishment objectively when they're paying for you?

I am not a journalist, nor a writer - as commonly understood. Except, of course, that as a scientist, I write up my research results, either as first author, or in collaboration with others. For the past four years, I have worked for a private, for-profit company that sells instruments, including the device I use to do research. And yes, my research is seen as part of an overall marketing effort - scientists see, scientists want to do! So I have to deal with conflict of interest issues. How do I do that?

First and foremost, as a scientist before I worked for my present employer (and probably in the future!), I have a reputation to protect. I may not be well-known even in the aerosol field in general (let alone climate research!), but there is a core group of very influential scientists (read: past advisors who write recommendation letters!) that will call out any hackery on my part. So I have to be very careful and impartial while writing up the research I do with my company's instruments.

Second, where-ever I have been listed as a first author or a co-author, my affiliation with The Company is prominently displayed, just as a professor's name is associated with her/his university or independent research lab. So it is easy for the reader to look out for any soft spots, as it were, in my portions of that article. This formalizes the first point.

The third part is not writing, but peer-reviewing others' manuscripts - part of the "community service" scientists do. Not many manuscripts have come my way that present a direct conflict of interest - just two come to mind, over the dozens I have reviewed over the past four years. In one instance, I told the editor of my position; s/he found an alternate, and I was not required. In the second, the editor knew me well enough, and knew that I was one of the few scientists who would be able to properly evaluate the manuscript - my sub-sub-field is not very big, and I am actually very good at what I do! The editor said my review met his/her expectations. (This is part of the first point - keeping up my reputation.)

Finally, there is presentation of my research at conferences - something integral to science these days. Only once have I been asked not present my talk - even though it had been approved by the technical committee. Apparently, the conference did not want any private company to present, as some take advantage of the opportunity to deliver a sales pitch. As my fellow scientists say, I make a horrible salesman, telling people both the good and the bad about my instruments - gotta preserve the hard-earned reputation!

Bottomline - all I have as a scientist, really, is my experience and my reputation. And without the latter, I won't get very far in this age of peer-review that drives not only publication (the life-blood of a scientist), but also funding (the real life-blood of a scientist!)

Losing sight of the big picture

2011-04-27T22:44:00.015-06:00

This morning, President Obama released his long-form birth certificate. Yes, really, that happened. The democratically-elected leader of the free world, who happens to be the first Black President of this predominantly-White nation, had to produce his papers, thanks to a long-running campaign of misinformation and lies spread by Fox News and the Republican/Tea Party, most recently brought to the forefront by the asinine, apparent GOP Presidential hopeful and front-runner, Donald Trump and the media hordes that follow this joker.

The day was dominated by reactions from various sides. Thinking back over the day, I felt that we are losing sight of the bigger picture, focusing instead on minutiae. To wit:

1. Many in my Twitter timeline, dominated by liberals/Democrats, blasted Trump for playing to birthers who seem to dominate the GOP primary electorate. I humbly submit that Trump is just an opportunist, exploiting the latent racism and Islamophobia that underlies birtherism.

Note also that birtherism has a history much longer than Trump's involvement, thanks to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, the Hillary Clinton primary campaign, and the sly nod-and-wink responses of Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders. When there are official documents available, one does not need to "take the President at his word."

2. Yesterday, progressive activist Nicole Sandler was arrested for creating a ruckus at Rep. Allen West's townhall. She later compared her temporary incarceration to Pfc Bradley Manning's solitary confinement. Defenders of President Obama on the Manning/Wikileaks issue were offended, and chastised Ms Sandler. This comparison by Ms Sandler is minor compared to the fact that an American, a resident of the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free, was put in prison for questioning her Congressman. At least, I'd like to think so.

3. Finally, the issue that really brought up this post. Jake Tapper is a fine journalist with a well-deserved reputation, e.g. see his pieces at Salon.com on the Iraq War, e.g. this, or on Dubya's drunken sailor economics. Tapper's first report on today's marquee event appropriately calls birtherism "nonsense." But two hours later, he pens this report:

"President Obama tells untruth in Birth Certificate press briefing"

And what was the President lying about? That two weeks ago, the media focused on the birther story (thanks to Trump), rather than the budget battle between POTUS and GOP Rep. Paul Ryan. Tapper uses data from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism to show that two weeks ago, the economy was indeed the main story by far. Ergo, the President lied.

But take a closer look at the Pew reports. The report, as quoted by Tapper himself, also states:

“The week was also marked by another sign that the media are gearing up for the campaign—rumors about Obama’s national origin resurfaced, this time from tycoon Donald Trump, a potential GOP contender for the presidential nomination. These questions made up much of the coverage that focused on the Obama administration, a topic that accounted for another 4% of the newshole.”

True, that 4% of the newshole may be a small fraction, and so far, Tapper is right. But take a look at Pew's report for last week:

Headline for April 18-24, 2011: "Trump pushes the 2012 race into the news"

And how did Trump do that?

For the week of April 18-24, the 2012 presidential race emerged as a big story, more than doubling its previous high water mark this year. It accounted for 8% of the newshole studied by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, making it the third-biggest story in the news last week. And a closely related story (at 3%) involved attention to Obama himself, with a particular focus on the “birther” movement that questions whether the president was born in the U.S.

In both cases, that was due in large part to the attention garnered by real estate developer, reality TV star and now possible presidential candidate Trump—who has embraced the birther issue and become the rising star of the GOP presidential field.

Indeed, Trump was the week’s second leading newsmaker behind Obama, registering as a dominant figure in 4% of all the week’s stories. That is six times more attention than the next most-covered potential GOP contender, Sarah Palin, generated last week.

Among the news organizations that carried Trump stories: Tapper's own ABC, including Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, with prime-time coverage and an interview.

I have no idea what the prime-time breakdown of the Pew's stories are, but if Trump is getting prime-time press coverage, fueled largely by his pandering to birtherism, seems to me the President has a very good case for stating that the press is focused on a triviality rather than more important issues. (I won't even go into the Ed Henry WH presser question, right after CNN themselves comprehensively debunked the birther claim.)

But all that said and done, Tapper's reaction to the President's speech stands in stark contrast to this visceral, oh-so-appropriate reaction from Baratunde Thurston, the web editor for The Onion:

Perhaps Tapper, as an objective journalist, does not have the freedom or perspective that Thurston does. But Thurston's reaction shows exactly why today is a shame not just for the GOP and Fox News, but all of America; that is the real story of the day.

I admire and respect Tapper. Maybe, that piece was a defensive reaction to something he knows is just wrong with the way news organizations like ABC helped sustain these ridiculous lies; deny Trump press coverage on this issue, and Trump will lose interest in birtherism or transcript-erism like the publicity whore he is.

Maybe, just as Tapper wrote that President lied about the Press, he will write about how the press was complicit in spreading lies about the President.

Maybe the rest of us will remember the big picture, and not get distracted by minutiae.

Good night, and good luck.

Update 1: Jake Tapper responds:

"1) that wasn't my "reaction." 2) It was 1 blog post, a fraction of our coverage of the issue yesterday."

When I wrote this post, I looked up Tapper's blog on the ABC website. I saw three pieces directly related to the birth certificate release; the two I cited above, and a video report, which seemed similar to the first story. (The other stories were on President Obama's birther-related jokes at fundraisers, and the CIA/SecDef appointments.)

If Tapper had cited last week's Pew report, as I did above, his second blog would have come off as an objective "correcting the President's error" - yes, he was wrong, but we cannot deny the rising tide that is the Trump media circus. Without that, the second blog looks factual, yes, but still a defensive reaction.

Update 2: Via Taegan Goddard: "Trump leads Republican field." Chalk one up for birtherism and the media circus...

Why I proudly support the Pittsburgh Steelers

2011-02-03T21:29:00.006-07:00

The Pittsburgh Steelers will face the Green Bay Packers in Superbowl XLV. Obviously, this is an exciting time for me - a staunch Steeler fan. In this piece, I try to lay out what exactly makes me such a strong supporter of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

A little history. I grew up in India, and was not really aware of American football till I came to the US for graduate school - to Pittsburgh. But it was not till I moved to Urbana-Champaign, IL, for my post-doc, that I started really following the Steelers. At that time, I, an unapologetic city-slicker, felt lost in the small college town, two hours away from any city - and I did not drive at that time, either!

What to do? I started feeling nostalgic for Pittsburgh, the last city I was in. But I couldn't afford to go there very often. I had, however, started following American football - and guess what, the Steelers were becoming the powerhouse that they are today. It was Big Ben Roethlisberger's rookie year, and it was magical - the Steelers went 15-1, won the AFC No. 1 seed, and faced their nemesis, the New England Patriots, in the AFC Championship game. I went out and bought a television set specifically for this game, even though I feared the Steelers would lose. And they... lost.

But a connection was forged, and I have been a Steelers fan ever since - they were my link to "civilization" initially, but soon became part of my sentimental attachment to Pittsburgh, my "American hometown." (I even watched the Stanley Cup finals recently, just because the Pittsburgh Penguins were playing - and wouldn't you know it, they won!)

Since that year, the Steelers have been on a roll. They won Superbowl XL the following year, Bill Cowher's last as the Head Coach. The Steelers hired a young defensive co-ordinator, Mike Tomlin, as Cowher's replacement. Wonder of wonders, the Steelers went on to win Superbowl XLIII - Tomlin becoming the youngest head coach to win a Superbowl. And now, the Steelers and Tomlin might just win another ring.

But this year has been marred by Ben Roethlisberger's off-field shenanigans - he was accused of molesting/raping a woman (read more here.) No charges were filed, but Roethlisberger was suspended by the NFL for six games without pay. With good behavior, this was reduced to four. As a further consequence, many casual observers have started hating the Steelers, and purport to support the team with the "non-rapist quarterback" - any opponent of the Steelers.

Which makes me really sad. Don't get me wrong - I wish Ben Roethlisberger would keep it in his pants, so to speak. He has a past history of immature behavior - after winning his first Superbowl, he had an accident while riding his motorbike - sans helmet. And more crucially, he has now been accused twice of molesting/raping a woman.

But given that no charges have been filed, let alone proven, I cannot say with certainty that Ben Roethlisberger was guilty. And so this outpouring of hatred toward an organization that has a rich history, strikes me as highly unjustified.

Casual observers would do well to note that a football team is not just one person - there are 53 players on the roster, in addition to the coaches and management. And the Pittsburgh Steelers, I am proud to say, have many stalwarts in their midst. Here are some prominent examples:

1. The Rooneys, who own the team. They emphasize stability and give people a chance to develop their talents over many years - here's an excellent profile. Unlike many other NFL owners, they are not greedy. Asked his opinion on the NFL possibly switching to an 18-game regular season schedule instead of the current 16, Dan Rooney said:

"I’d rather not have the money."

The exact opposite of Gordon Gekko's "Greed is good" mantra. Isn't that what we want our sports personalities to not just say, but actually do?

An interesting tidbit: After each game, the Rooneys go into the locker room, and shake hands with every player - win or lose. I think this exemplifies the "it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game" spirit.

Further, the Rooney Rule, named for the Rooney family and in particular, Dan Rooney, requires each NFL team to interview minority candidates for head coaching and other senior-level football operation positions. And the Rooneys followed through on their own rule by hiring Mike Tomlin, who at that time did not have NFL head coaching experience. Tomlin is now one of only two African-American head coaches to have won a Superbowl (the Colts' Tony Dungy is the other.) And without the Rooneys' belief, Tomlin may not have had a chance.

2. Superbowl XL MVP, Hines Ward, who is of Black/Korean descent. The Hines Ward Helping Hands Korea Foundation helps biracial Korean kids achieve a positive self-image. For his work, Ward received the inaugural 2010 UN NGO Positive Peace Award in the Professional Athlete category.

“Hines Ward changed the cultural landscape of Korea,” said Janet Mintzer, president/CEO of Pearl S. Buck Intl. “After Japanese invasions, Korea placed high value on being pure-blooded Koreans, creating prejudice of bi-racial people. As a successful bi-racial Korean-American, he returned to Korea, creating media attention, which sparked a cultural shift.”

3. Ryan Clark, Safety. Clark has "sickle-cell trait", and since 2007, has been involved in efforts to raise awareness about the disease - for example, see this visit to a school, and he has helped the Children's Sickle Cell Foundation in Pittsburgh. (I believe Sports Illustrated's Peter King picked Ryan Clark as the person he'd like his kids to be like, though I can't find the quote right now.)

4. Then we have Troy Polamalu - one of the most dangerous players on the field, but serene and very humble off it. He never disparages an opponent, always talks about the team before himself, and is a devout Christian - but does not push it on anybody.

The problem, as I see it, is that people tend to focus on sensational stories rather than uplifting lives. A pity.

Go Steelers!

The MetroPCS ads

2011-01-03T23:16:00.009-07:00

A friend on Twitter alerted me to some ads that aired during a recent Superbowl and after, hawking MetroPCS' cellular services. These ads feature two South Asian/Indian-Americans, talking with very recognizable accents and using common Western stereotypes - cows, cobras and snake charmers. The ad campaign provoked a major backlash - a Google search for "MetroPCS ads racist" turns up ~29,000 hits, including calls to boycott MetroPCS. The campaign seems to have helped sales, though MetroPCS' Youtube channel no longer features the ads.

I watched the ads, and I must say - I was not offended by them. There are definitely some caricatures I would rather avoid - especially snake charmers and cobras. But maybe I am not offended as many others are, because:

1. I have known Indians who talk like the two characters, though without the cow and snake charmer references. Perhaps that's because I am a first-generation immigrant to the US - FOB! Second- or third-generation Indian-Americans are less likely to find these heavily-accented caricatures even remotely familiar. (I speak English with a distinct accent, though not as pronounced.)

2. Many of the aforementioned Indians-with-a-thick-accent were also very smart - and the two characters in the MetroPCS ads are shown offering useful ("smart") advice to the poor, frustrated cellphone user. This is a "good" stereotype, is there is ever such a thing.

There are other ads that caricature Indians as lazy and incompetent (a la "Sambo") - in particular, a Discover Card ad featuring a guy (who looks White!) with an Indian accent and calling himself "Peggy." These ads definitely make me uncomfortable, and I will probably give Discover a call over this, if not cancel my account altogether.

But the MetroPCS ads? Naah, not worth wasting my time over.

Excerpts from the Manning-Lamo chat logs

2010-12-29T23:11:00.004-07:00

Marking some excerpts from the Wired Manning-Lamo chat logs (emphases mine):

1. About dedicated file servers assigned to Pfc Manning by Wikileaks/Assange:

(02:49:25 PM) Manning: it was uploaded
(02:50:04 PM) Lamo: uploaded where? how would i transmit something if i had similarly damning data
(02:51:49 PM) Manning: uhm… preferably openssl the file with aes-256… then use sftp at prearranged drop ip addresses
(02:52:08 PM) Manning: keeping the key separate… and uploading via a different means
(02:52:31 PM) Lamo: so i myself would be SOL w/o a way to prearrange
(02:54:33 PM) Manning: not necessarily… the HTTPS submission should suffice legally… though i’d use tor on top of it…
(02:54:43 PM) Manning: but you’re data is going to be watched
(02:54:44 PM) Manning: *your
(02:54:49 PM) Manning: by someone, more than likely
(02:54:53 PM) Lamo: submission where?
(02:55:07 PM) Manning: wl.org submission system
(02:55:23 PM) Lamo: in the massive queue?
(02:55:54 PM) Manning: lol, yeah, it IS pretty massive…
(02:55:56 PM) Manning: buried
(02:56:04 PM) Manning: i see what you mean
(02:56:35 PM) Manning: long term sources do get preference… i can see where the “unfairness” factor comes in
(02:56:53 PM) Lamo: how does that preference work?
(02:57:47 PM) Manning: veracity… the material is easy to verify…
(02:58:27 PM) Manning: because they know a little bit more about the source than a purely anonymous one
(02:59:04 PM) Manning: and confirmation publicly from earlier material, would make them more likely to publish… i guess…
(02:59:16 PM) Manning: im not saying they do… but i can see how that might develop
(03:00:18 PM) Manning: if two of the largest public relations “coups” have come from a single source… for instance
(03:02:03 PM) Manning: you yeah… purely *submitting* material is more likely to get overlooked without contacting them by other means and saying hey, check your submissions for x…

2. Assange using encrypted chat/perhaps proactively contacting Pfc Manning:

(8:01:30 AM) Lamo: Does Assange use AIM or other messaging services? I’d like to chat with him one of these days about opsec. My only credentials beyond intrusion are that the FBI never got my data or found me, before my negotiated surrender, but that’s something.
(8:01:53 AM) Lamo: And my data was never recovered.
(8:02:07 AM) Manning: no he does not use AIM
(8:02:37 AM) Lamo: How would I get ahold of him?
(8:02:59 AM) Manning: he would come to you
(8:03:26 AM) Lamo: I’ve never failed to get ahold of someone.
(8:03:29 AM) Manning: he does use OTR though… but discusses nothing OPSEC
(8:03:42 AM) Lamo: I cornered Ashcroft IRL, in the end.
(8:04:19 AM) Manning: he *might* use the ccc.de jabber server… but you didn’t hear that from me

So anyway...

DADT about to pass, DREAM not

2010-12-18T11:23:00.004-07:00

Much of what I intended to say in this post has already been written by Greg Sargent. It's a good read, but I shall press on, regardless:

1. Yes, pressure from the left, including Lt Dan Choi's heroic/dramatic efforts, helped bring about this day. But we must not forget the important sequence of events that lead to this *vote*.

2. DADT could only be repealed with the help of moderate Republicans - and Senators Snowe (R-ME) and Brown (R-MA) had placed the condition that the Bush tax cuts would have to be extended in FULL, before any vote on DADT. Much as Senator Kyl (R-AZ) may deny it, he had also imposed the same condition on ratification of START. (Unfortunately, DREAM just does not seem to have been part of this discussion, because even some Democrats were opposed to it.)

3. President Obama seemed more interested in getting START dealt with, and so made a (some say shitty) taxcut deal with Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell. I have written about the advantages of, and need for, this deal earlier.

4. Even though the omnibus budget was crafted with bipartisan effort, Majority Leader Harry Reid found Republican support slipping away, apparently over the inclusion of $8 billion in earmarks out of a $1.1 trillion bill.

5. In a deft maneuver, Senator Reid chucked the omnibus bill, and filed for cloture on DREAM and DADT repeal while the Senate was talking START. I am not sure the White House was happy about this, as Senators Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham accused Reid of "poisoning the well" and hinted that START may not pass.

6. And finally today, Democrat Senators Kay Hagan, Jon Tester, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson and Joe Manchin blocked the DREAM of young immigrant kids even as Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Bob Bennett and Dick Lugar voted for it.

Luckily, however, DADT got 63 votes for cloture, clearing the way for final repeal. (Thanks to Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich, Scott Brown, and surprisingly, Mark Kirk (who voted against repeal while in the House.)

So to sum: GOP moderates used their leverage over DADT repeal to ensure a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts. President Obama took a lot of heat from the Left for making this deal. Senator Reid deftly pushed DADT ahead of START.

Without the much-maligned taxcut deal and Senator Reid's adroitness, we would not be repealing DADT today. I hope "progressives" who are more concerned with taxes than with equality for the LGBT community, and excoriate President Obama for making that deal, learn from this episode.

p.s. Maybe the tea party is indeed all about fiscal issues. If teabagging Republicans had not pulled away from the omnibus budget over earmarks, we would not be repealing DADT today!

What I would like to hear Democrats say

2010-12-15T23:06:00.002-07:00

Apropos the President Obama/GOP tax cut deal that was passed today by the US Senate, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) writes:

I voted against extending tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires because I believed it was fiscally irresponsible and would unnecessarily add to our nation's huge debt.

This is the Democratic position that even President Obama ran on, and pretty standard for Democrats.

However, this reasoning rarely mentions the fact that extending the Bush taxcuts for the middle-class - which Senator Udall voted for - would also increase the national debt that he claims to be so concerned about. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that extending the Bush taxcuts for the middle class and a permanent fix to the AMT will cost $3 trillion over 10 years - and extending the taxcuts for those making over $250,000/year will add $700 billion to that over the next decade.

If Senator Udall and other Democrats really want to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, here is what I would like to hear them say:

"By extending the middle-class taxcuts and fixing the AMT for two years, we will add $463 billion to the deficit. But that is necessary, because we are in a recession, and we want to get as much money into the hands of the American people as we can, so that they can spend the money, increase demand, grow the economy, and lead us out of the recession.

We need the payroll taxcuts to provide an additional stimulus to working Americans. But because we need to ensure the future of Social Security, we will pay for this temporary reduction in payroll taxes by, yes, further borrowing. Again, this is temporary for two years, with the objective of increasing consumer demand to grow us out of this recession.

We also need to extend unemployment benefits for Americans who are out of a job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work, so that they are not left without food or a roof over their heads (and it will come back into the economy as they spend the money). And this cause is worth borrowing $56 billion for.

The wealthiest Americans do not need the extra Bush taxcuts, as even Warren Buffet admits. In particular, wealthy Americans who are concerned about the debt should be happy to let the rates go back to that under the Clinton era, so that we do not add to the national debt."

I am sure Senator Udall's speech-writers can do a better job, but I would like him to be honest about the real costs.

Finally - my own reasoning for supporting this tax cut deal, over and above the additional, second stimulus - is the chance at passing the DREAM Act, repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, and ratification of new START, as moderate Republicans like Susan Collins, Scott Brown, and Olympia Snowe have imposed the condition of extension of the Bush tax cuts as a precursor to these three important pieces of legislation. Next year, Republicans will control the House, and they will likely pass such a taxcut deal (or worse, from the Democrats' point of view), that the President will be hard-pressed to veto (as any stimulus will help the economy.) But we will have fewer votes in the Senate and far fewer in the House to pass those three important pieces of legislation, effectively dooming at least DADT repeal and DREAM. If giving the richest Americans $150 billion (Bush tax cuts + estate tax) helps us achieve passage of these three critical items, it will be well worth it.

Using probabilities to predict election results

2010-11-28T19:35:00.008-07:00

The recent mid-term elections, especially the Senate results for Colorado and Nevada, made me wonder about the efficacy of likely-voter screens that pollsters normally use. Rather than discarding all "not-likely" voters, could one assign probabilities to different sub-groups formed based on likelihood-of-voting?
Thanks to Mark Blumenthal, I now know that the CBS/New York Times poll uses probabilities instead of a "likely voter" screen. Here is Mark Blumenthal's write-up on the method and its results for Presidential elections till 2004. How did the poll do in 2008?
First, all the polls (from the lovely charts at the erstwhile Pollster.com, now part of HuffPo):

Second, the CBS/Times polls:

Much more consistent than some other polls, including Rasmussen and USA Today/Gallup, for sure. You can click on any of the points to see the raw trend instead of the Pollster.com-generated trend line. The final result, of course, was Obama 52.9%, McCain 45.7% (Wiki). While the "all polls" trendlines finally converge to the actual results, the CBS/Times poll suggests the race was relatively consistent throughout the fall - especially the CBS/Times-specific trendline.

Here is a description of Registration-Based Sampling, which uses voter registration history to contact only those voters with a history of voting, rather than a self-reported history provided by randomly-contacted voters (Random Digit Dialing).

(Much thanks to Mark Blumenthal for the links: Follow him on Twitter, and on the new Huffington Post/Pollster website. Any errors in data interpretation are purely my fault.)

Cautiously optimistic about Colorado Senate & Michael Bennet

2010-11-03T01:17:00.013-06:00

Currently (0146 Wednesday Nov 3), per MSNBC, Senator Michael Bennet and challenger Ken Buck are separated by a few thousand votes. Nate Silver and Dave Weigel appear to think Denver, Boulder and Arapahoe counties have not reported a large fraction of their results, so Senator Bennet's a shoo-in. While I am obviously a Bennet partisan (having volunteered long hours, including 12+ hours today), I believe the race is much, much tighter, though I would bet that Senator Bennet wins.

Here are the gory details:

1. Boulder County estimated total turnout at 119k, out of 164k "active" voters; as of writing, 86459 votes have been counted, including 228 polling-day-votes. Senator Bennet leads 66.5-29.2. If the County estimate is correct, that means an additional 12k vote gain for Senator Bennet.

2. Denver County has 273,922 "active" voters. In the last General/Governor mid-term, 2006 (PDF), "active turnout" was 58.56%. If that remains constant (got a text from Hickenlooper that turnout was low!), that means a total vote of 160,408; so far, 149k votes have been counted, and Bennet leads 71-24.7. So there's an additional 5k vote gain for Bennet.

At the other extreme, in 2008 the active turnout was 89% - that means another 95k votes are still out there, and Bennet easily wins. I somehow doubt this high turnout was the case (see Hick's text from earlier.)

UPDATE (Wed 0800): As of 0415 Mountain, Denver County's FINAL unofficial tally is 174k votes in Denver, with Bennet winning 71.2-24.4. So that's a lead of 81,450 votes in Denver County, compared to 69,060 when I wrote this post last night. So an additional 12k vote gain rather than an additional 5k gain, thanks to 5% higher turnout than in 2006 - 63.6% in the Senate race.

3. Arapahoe County appears to have ALL its vote counted, with a turnout of 164k out of 273k "active" voters, despite what the NYT says ("11% reporting").

UPDATE (Wed 2000): Denver Post says that as of this morning, 30k votes were still out; as of 5 PM, the County reports 180k votes tallied, with Bennet up 49-45.7. So even if another 15k votes are out there, Bennet will still win!

4. Weld and El Paso counties appear to be almost all done, as do most of the rural Colorado counties - ASSUMING the afore-mentioned NYT report is correct. Still, with the current totals including 170k votes from El Paso county (Colorado Springs!), I doubt there are many more votes there.

UPDATE: Weld County, Ken Buck's home, do appear to have all their ballots counted. El Paso, OTOH, has a sucky website.

UPDATE (0830 Wed): Per the NYT, El Paso county is 100% in, and Ken Buck gained (I think) another 3k votes. SENATOR MICHAEL BENNET IS AHEAD BY ALMOST 7500 VOTES, BOULDER STILL COUNTING!

Add up 1 & 2, we get (at a minimum) about a 17k additional vote gain for Senator Bennet from Denver and Boulder - a potential victory margin of 10k votes for the incumbent Democrat. (UPDATED/CORRECTED: This is BIGGER THAN the 0.5% margin of the highest vote-getter, or 3,900 votes - NOT the vote-TOTAL - that triggers a recount.)

As I said, cautiously optimistic.

FINAL UPDATE (Sat AM): With 97% precincts reporting, Michael Bennet has won by 15k votes - thanks to an increased turnout in Denver county.

Why I support Michael Bennet

2010-10-20T22:58:00.011-06:00

The Colorado Senate race between Michael Bennet and Ken Buck is one of the closest races in the November 2010 mid-term election, and could determine if the GOP takes control of the Senate. More importantly, it will determine who will be Colorado's junior Senator for the next six years.

The case against Republican Ken Buck is very clear. Ken Buck is socially very conservative, opposing abortions even in cases of rape and incest; he apparently lacks any understanding whatsoever of date rape; he thinks homosexuality is mostly a choice, against modern scientific knowledge; and he supports continuing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). His main goal as a Senator appears to be to act as a road-block against President Obama's agenda (think climate change and comprehensive immigration reform), and he also promises to repeal the healthcare reforms passed recently, in their entirety. Overall, someone who will prevent any progress in the future, and will roll back as many of the legislative successes achieved by President Obama and the Democrats in the past two years as possible.

But more important than voting against someone is getting to vote for someone. And I am proud to state that I am unequivocally for Senator Michael Bennet. My reasons are as follows:

1. Senator Bennet believes in using the power of government for good (stimulating the economy, regulating insurance companies and Wall Street, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the Matthew Shepard Act) and not in (ab)using it to control our personal lives, for example DADT (fun videos here!) or denying women abortion rights.

- In fact, seems to me that Senator Bennet is a civil libertarian on this (and other) issues: "I will work hard to defend the rights of my girls to govern their own reproductive health from government intrusion." (link)

2. Senator Bennet seeks to find solutions to problems and works with Democrats and Republicans alike; for example, the Pay It Back Act to pay down the Federal deficit with repaid TARP funds (supported by Republican Senators Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson, and Democrats Mark Udall and Jon Tester, among others.)

3. Some liberals/progressives may disagree, but Senator Bennet supported sending out $250 checks to seniors who did not receive a COLA increase in their SS pay, only if it was paid for from left over stimulus funds.

(Why I think this is a reasonable approach: There was little to no inflation, so there should be no COLA. So to me, the only rationale for the $250 check is as a form of stimulus, ergo, it can be paid out of ARRA.)

4. Democrats and other folks frustrated with a seeming lack of progress since January 2009 should remember that Republicans time and again mounted what was effectively a filibuster. Democrats might have had almost-60 Senators; that's close, but no cigar. Senators Kennedy and Byrd were often sick; Senator Franken was not officially elected till mid-2009. So Democrats had to seek compromises with "moderate" Republicans. We saw how the negotiations with GOP Senators Snowe, Collins and Specter reduced the size of the stimulus bill (ARRA); fruitless talks with Senators Grassley, Enzi and Snowe stalled healthcare reform; and for all the GOP's bluff-and-bluster about supporting small businesses, Republican Senators blocked a bill easing lending to small businesses for months, till two retiring GOP Senators helped break the filibuster. And yet, Democrats seem unwilling to do away with the filibuster, likely out of fear that if they are reduced to minority status in the future, they will not be able to block Republican bills.

As far as I can tell, the best plan to reform the filibuster has been proposed by Senator Michael Bennet, which preserves the filibuster, but does not allow a permanent block. Read Congress Matters expert David Waldman (KagroX on Dailykos and Twitter) on the filibuster; this is what Waldman says about Senator Bennet's solution:

As part of his Senate rules reform proposal, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) proposes making the motion to proceed non-debatable while the Senate is in legislative session. And when I last wrote about it, I didn't know that his proposal for ending secret holds was in fact based on doing that. It's a smart proposal that would do for bills in legislative session what I described as being the case for nominations in executive session. That is, it knocks down one procedural hurdle (the ability to filibuster the motion to proceed to consideration of a bill) and leaves just the one hurdle -- the ability to filibuster the bill itself.

That last is perhaps the wonkiest, but also the most important reason I support Senator Michael Bennet - a level-headed, (reasonably) bipartisan approach to solving problems.

Video update: Here's Senator Bennet testifying before the Senate Rules Committee on filibuster reform:

"Public Notice" - a teabagger/GOP front

2010-09-28T08:30:00.006-06:00

I saw an ad this morning on MSNBC, by Public Notice, that talks about rising deficits due to allegedly out-of-control government spending, and urges folks to vote on November 2 for a "small, caring government" - sounds like anti-Democrat, maybe even "compassionate conservative"! So I looked up their website; their "About" section says:

Public Notice is an independent non-profit dedicated to providing facts and insight on the economy and how government policy affects Americans’ financial well-being.

Through education and awareness projects, Public Notice engages Americans on today’s policies, to avoid tomorrow’s problems.

Americans, empowered with the facts, can lead Washington to be better stewards of the nation’s economic and fiscal future.

That is a very laudable objective. So I poked around, and saw a video clip filmed apparently during Glenn Beck's 8-28 rally, that asks folks five questions: Which President (1) Spent $3 trillion in a single year; (2) bailed out hundreds of large corporations; (3) spent billions of tax dollars on stimulus spending during a recession; (4) raised spending by many times the rate of inflation on non-defense items; (5) passed an expensive healthcare bill. The answer to all these questions is, apparently: Both Bush and Obama.

This may be a surprise, since Bush labeled himself as a "compassionate conservative", and Public Notice clearly lays some blame on him. But not quite. If one follows US politics closely (and I do!), then the "Bush was NOT a real conservative" is a common trope trotted out by Republicans to explain the record deficits created by President George W Bush's policies.

Second, though the health care reform bill passed by President Obama and the Democrats might seem expensive (how else does one pay to insure 33 million additional Americans?), "Public Notice" fails to note a crucial difference, given their "deficits are critical" theme:

President Obama's healthcare bill was fully paid for, as per the (truly) non-partisan CBO, and even reduces the federal deficit - by $130 billion over the first ten years, and by over $1.2 trillion over the second decade!
President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program, on the other hand, was NOT paid for at all, and in fact, raises the federal deficit by over $500 billion!

Third: Public Notice fails to understand that in a recession, the government *has* to spend money to make up for the lack of demand - otherwise, unemployment gets worse as manufacturers lay off workers. Don't take my word for it - read up Paul Krugman or other noted economists.

A final point. If Public Notice really was all about educating citizens, they would be more upfront about who is behind this group and its work - but the "About" section lists not a single name.

Sorry, Public Notice - but it is very hard to accept your "independent" claim. You are nothing but a front for teabagger Republicans.

Debating the price of the Chevy Volt

2010-08-14T12:48:00.003-06:00

This will be a quickie.

Chevy's new Volt is priced at $41,000, with a $7,000 government rebate. Earlier today, @emptywheel said that since the net price of the Chevy Volt was $34,000, it is not very expensive compared to the average price of US (Ford, GM, Chrysler) vehicles, $30,400. This is based on the New York Times report on the Chevy Volt.

All I wanted to point out was that the NYT did not specify what that "average" represented. Did it compare other mid-size sedans? Or was that a general average of *all* vehicles, ranging from a Chevy Cobalt ($14,990) to a Cadillac Escalade ($86,000+)?

This lead to a long exchange with @emptywheel and @bmaz. But at the end of all that, the basic question remained unanswered: What is the basis for this comparison?

Here is why that question is important. Say we sell 100 Cobalts at $15,000 each and 15 Escalades at $86,000 each. The average price comes out to $24,260.

Now say we introduce a fictitious Chevy Current, an electric vehicle priced at $35,000 (say), which after a government rebate of $7,000, comes to $28,000.

Essentially, @emptywheel argues that the Current is not that expensive, since it costs only $3,740 more than the "average US vehicle."

However, one should be able to figure out that the Current, even after the government rebate, at $28,000, is almost twice as expensive as 87% of the vehicles we sold at $15,000! Would one still be able to say that the Current is not that expensive?

I am willing to concede all of @emptywheel's and @bmaz's points - that this is an "early-adopter" marketing strategy, that the Chevy Volt is the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc. etc.

However, I would still like to know: What is the basis for that comparative "average US vehicle price"?

Easy, right?

Thoughts on CO-Senate Democratic primary

2010-07-21T22:11:00.010-06:00

In the upcoming Colorado Senate primary on the Democratic side, we have Sen. Michael Bennet, formerly Denver Public Schools Superintendent and appointed by (now-outgoing) Gov. Bill Ritter to fill Secretary Ken Salazar's vacant Senate seat, and Andrew Romanoff, erstwhile Speaker of of the Colorado House of Representatives.

Romanoff is seen as the progressive in the race, and won the earlier caucus; but the Democratic candidate will be decided by a primary held on August 10, 2010. Sadly, the race has turned somewhat nasty, with Romanoff claiming not to take any "special-interest" money, and charging Bennet as being in the pockets of Wall Street. Sen. Bennet's campaign has hit back with an ad exposing Romanoff's past acceptance of PAC funds, for which Romanoff has since "apologized".

Firstly, both candidates would be better than the Republican (Ken Buck or Jane Norton). Second, progressives/liberals may think less of Sen. Bennet for the laws he helped the Obama administration pass - no single-payer healthcare or even a public option, no breaking up of the big banks, continuing bank bail-outs. But frankly, if Romanoff had been appointed Senator instead of Bennet, he would have cast the very same votes that Bennet did - that was the party line! What would "progressives" rather have Bennet do - vote against health care and Wall Street reform, thus bringing both of them down, leading to President Obama's Waterloo?

So in that sense, tomato/tomahto. But a choice has to be made. For starters, I have actually met the man, and perhaps that sways me. That aside, Bennet is relatively fresh - though he was Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's Chief-of-Staff, in a sense he is not a career politician a la Andrew Romanoff. Bennet also has extensive private sector experience, successfully reorganizing/managing large companies in distress. Hopefully, Bennet will put that experience to good use as the Obama administration and Congress lead us out of the current economic mess - though thus far, his actions have tended to underwhelm me.

But overall, I'd rather see Michael Bennet nominated (and win!)

UPDATE:

Rule of politics-as-usual: The candidate that is behind is the first to go negative. And so, just like a typical politician, Andrew Romanoff has unleashed some vicious, false campaign ads. These have been the subject of articles by Michael Booth of the Denver Post and Dana Milbank in the Washington Post. (Milbank once worked for Romanoff, and has some interesting background on Romanoff's style.)

With these attack ads, Romanoff has gained ground on Bennet, and they are now even. But these gains have come at a cost. I have found that Bennet supporters tend to support the Democrat-who-wins-the-primary. But now, at least one has stated on Facebook that she will NOT support Romanoff any more even if he wins, and I will add myself to that group.

Meta-thought: Romanoff proudly states that he has been named "top legislator" during his term in the Colorado House, for bringing together Republicans and Democrats, and this is what he will bring to Washington. But look at the man's actions: in pursuit of the Democratic nomination, Romanoff has chosen the "win-at-all-costs" route, effectively setting Democrats against each other, and souring Bennet supporters who were willing to work with him. If he is so eager and willing to tear Democrats apart, does anybody believe he will fare any better with Republicans who are bent on defeating President Obama?

Sorry, Mr Speaker, you have revealed yourself to be nothing but a cynical, run-of-the-mill politician, and would fit right into Washington, DC.

UPDATE 2:

I found out today that Speaker Romanoff is on the Executive Committee of the Colorado Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC is a group of centrist Democrats, even though the "about" section of the CO DLC claims to be "progressives"; prominent members include President Bill Clinton (think welfare reform) and Harold Ford, Jr. There's nothing wrong with a Third Way approach (except it is often reviled by liberals); but Speaker Romanoff is running hard to the left to win the CO-Senate Democratic primary, even going to the extent of supporting single-payer healthcare.

But what does the DLC say about health care reform?

Reformers have put forth two general models to fix this ailing system. Some propose a single-payer, single-administrator system to cut administrative costs. They cite the fact that Medicare spends only 4 percent of its budget on administration, and their ideal model often looks like Medicare for all. Unfortunately, this model would leave fee-for-service payment in place -- insuring continued rapid cost inflation. Nor does it address the fragmentation that creates so much waste. On a practical level, it would require us to put the health-insurance industry out of business, a daunting political task.

The article linked above, dated January 2009, goes on to lay out strategies for successful reform of the healthcare system in America, including encouraging healthy behavior, electronic records, managed competition among health plans, and special health courts to contain medical malpractice costs.

I am pretty sure most, if not all, of these DLC-suggested objectives are met with the health care reform passed by the current Congress, including Senator Bennet. They have the worthy aim of reducing healthcare costs, which is often a major impediment to getting health insurance. The new health care reforms also prohibit (as of August 1, 2010, I believe) exclusion of patients due to pre-existing conditions.

Will these reforms make health care affordable? I would like to think so, and certainly hope so. Is it single-payer, Medicare-for-All? No, and based on the DLC's memo, and reporting such as that by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker, I am not sure that's such a good idea.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, Speaker Romanoff is (was?) a DLC-er, and if he truly believed in the principles of the DLC (rather than becoming a member only to ingratiate himself with President Clinton and then-Senator Ken Salazar), he would be praising the health care reform passed with the aid of Senator Bennet. Instead, he faults the reform effort and pushes for single-payer - something that endears him to liberals, but will NOT contain costs on its own.

Clearly, yet another cynical ploy by Speaker Romanoff to win the Democratic primary. Shame.

UPDATE 3:

Like I mentioned earlier, on the issues, Senator Bennet and Speaker Romanoff are largely alike. As part of the Senate, Bennet has voted to push through healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, and stimulus funding/unemployment benefits, though none of these are exactly what the liberal left wants. On the other hand, Speaker Romanoff, during his tenure in the CO State House, pushed through anti-illegal immigration measures that he touted as the toughest in the country. With comprehensive immigration reform next on the Democrats' agenda, I am not sure if I want someone like Speaker Romanoff voting on the issue - read Julie Gonzales.

In addition, if my previous updates did not make it clear - I am absolutely disgusted by Speaker Romanoff's misleading, disingenuous attacks on Senator Bennet, not to mention his sudden change of heart from a centrist DLC-er to a liberal, conveniently timed for the primary.

I now firmly support Senator Michael Bennet.

Bonus: Senator Bennet's autobiographical video, following his promise to remain positive in the final days of the campaign:

Bennet for Senate! Go Michael!

My Twitter Rules!

2010-07-20T20:59:00.007-06:00

Yes, it does! But the other meaning - how I use Twitter, and suggest others do too - is the subject of this post, which I'm pretty sure will develop over the course of time.

1. Twitter rocks - as a way to interact with people. I have made new friends from all walks of life (though my feed seems disconcertingly DC-heavy!) We talk politics, pop culture, sports, the weather, beer... It is social media, after all - don't be a-social!

2. Emanating from #1, and suggested by @KHayhoe: Do not use Twitter solely as a press release, and do not send auto-DMs - "Thank you for following me! Look forward to interacting with you!" - if you don't really plan to do so. This often happens with folks who follow (and are followed by) tens of thousands of tweeps (see #6). If I don't see you interacting with your followers, it's highly unlikely I will follow you.

3. Obviously, there are exceptions. These are primarily:

(a) politicians (@BarackObama!);

(b) real celebrities - authors and movie stars with a substantial body of work behind them (@iamsrk) come to mind; and

4. My other major use of Twitter is as a news-feed, from journalists in fields I am interested in: politics (@markknoller, @jaketapper, @chrisgeidner, @anamariecox, @ktumulty), sports (@SI_PeterKing), the environment (@drgrist, @kate_sheppard), and local news (@mistymontano). Their feeds are often filled with insights on, and links to, news outside their own work, and you might notice that these fine folks interact with ordinary people like me :-) That is NOT required, as they are busy chasing down interesting news stories for the rest of us.

But given the choice - and there are choices a-plenty on Twitter - I follow the folks listed above, instead of @DavidGregory.

(Perhaps one "real-world" advantage: I watched ABC's This Week while Jake Tapper hosted it and teased it via Twitter, in addition to interacting with his followers about the show. But I skip David Gregory's Meet the Press.)

5. Follow-back/Unfollow: See #1. If I follow you, that means I find your feed interesting. But (despite my delusions of self-importance, see #4!) I do not expect a follow-back. This works in the reverse way too - please do not expect a follow-back.

But I will usually follow you back, at least for a while, if your Twitter profile has a decent bio/web link (so I know who you are - the human connection) - this is important.

If your feed overwhelms my feed, or does not hold my interest, or has very little to no original content (e.g. if all you do is ReTweet others without even adding commentary), I will unfollow. (Unfollow me if you will.) I also unfollow inactive accounts from time to time, but obviously that does not affect you.

6. If you are a "Social media" or "marketing" expert with tens of thousands of followers/follows, do NOT expect a follow-back (and in any case, you are unlikely to be reading this post). I just do not believe meaningful human interaction (see #1) is possible at such volumes.

7. Porn/sales bots WILL get blocked. Since politics is a big part of my feed, I will unfollow or even block (a) single-issue ranters (since I already know your point of view on your pet issue, following you is not going to inform me further); and (b) folks on all sides, if you have no respect for human rights and civil discourse.

8. Finally: This is me. (Since this post will replace my bio link, figure I should link to my personal website here.) UPDATE: In the interest of full disclosure, my political leanings (thanks to OKCupid!), and reasons why I still don't call myself "liberal" or "progressive", despite what OKCupid says!

Hallelujah binge!

2010-06-28T22:30:00.002-06:00

Recently, I went on a Hallelujah binge: listening to/watching various versions of "Hallelujah". I posted links to each of these versions on Twitter, but the Twitter hashtag apparently has a short shelf-life. So, here are the videos (mostly for my own ready reference!)

1. The best, Jeff Buckley:

2. kd lang on Canadian TV:

3. The original, Leonard Cohen:

4. Kate Voegele:

5. A Norwegian quartet: Youtube (embedding disabled :-( )

6. And since I *love* Rufus Wainwright, here are two of his live performances:

Enjoy!

My political leanings...

2010-04-28T22:30:00.001-06:00

Took a "politics" quiz on OKCupid, and here are the results:

You are a
Social Liberal
(85% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(25% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Strong Democrat

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Shocked! I am shocked!

Matt Taibbi helping the Palinization of America...?

2010-04-14T22:09:00.007-06:00

So Matt Taibbi gets all "hail the working poor, us elites don't really work!" over David Brooks here. Several liberals in my Twitter feed were jumping for joy at Taibbi's put-down of Brooks. I wasn't too pleased, but I couldn't put my finger on it till this morning.

Taibbi's thesis apparently is that only the proletariat do "real" work. Only if someone puts in 80 hours/week on a demolition crew or other shitty manual labor, can it be called "real" work. The others - writers, intellectuals who generate ideas, pursue "work" that they love - aren't worth shit.

Not to go all John Galt, but this is a romanticization of manual labor that is completely unnecessary and even dangerous. If what I do as a scientist - a lot of writing, and yes, some of the research, things I actually love to do - is not "real" work and all these liberal commentators and yes, intellectuals push it accordingly - the results of my labors aren't going to be appreciated by the layman/proletariat, who only respect the fruits of real hard work. And who do you think produces reports on climate change? So-called "ivory-tower" intellectuals (including climate modelers!)

One of the annoying left-right divides in the US is anthropogenic climate change, which has become highly politicized, and it is quite frustrating that most GOPers (as represented by their Senators and Congressmen) believe humans don't contribute to climate change. Part of the reasoning stems from a lack of respect for climate scientists - "they are only in it for future funding!" And folks like Matt Taibbi - who romanticize "real" work - only help make the case against the intellectual labors of climate scientists stronger (among other creative/intellectual endeavors.)

Notes from a Speak Easy

2010-04-11T13:23:00.004-06:00

I am in North Carolina on a project with the EPA, and that gives me a chance to look around the Raleigh-Durham area. Yesterday, I decided to look up Carmen's Cafe, a Cuban joint - or that was the description, anyway! When I showed up around 10:30 PM, turned out there was a Speak Easy rather than Salsa dancing. Figured I'd hang out and see what it was all about.

The demographics were interesting - I was definitely the only Indian, but unlike Colorado bars (mostly White), this place was filled with African-Americans. Maybe 1 or 2 Caucasians, and the two bartenders were Latino. The Speak Easy (not a speakeasy) was essentially a sort of vox populi, with moderators posing questions, and audience members chiming in. As the tagline put it, "combining entertainment with intellect!"

The first question was about a woman who, six months into a relationship, found out the guy was a convict out on parole, after 10 years for armed robbery. What should she do? Opinions varied, and a spirited debate ensued: a guy saying "women won't go out with a convict", women saying it was about honesty, one woman saying 18-19 year-olds do stupid things that should not weigh them down forever, but finally, a woman ended that discussion with "we don't tell men we were hos!"

A later question was about problems with the school system, focusing on cross-dressing school kids and whether the schools should do anything about it. There was some conservatism - "parents should tell their kids they are going to school to study, not to bring attention to themselves"; caution ("schools can get sued!"); but also a female school teacher who said "these days, it does not cause disruption; 10 years back, gays and lesbians were outcasts, but now they are normal."

Today, I had the familiar l'escalier effect - what I should have said. As the school teacher pointed out, cross-dressing kids might well be viewed as normal by the other kids. In my opinion, the Speak Easy missed the bigger point - the problem with schoolkids is not the cross-dressing kids (if at all), so much as kids who bring guns and knives, forcing the school to install metal detectors. What sort of parents and school system allow this behavior to continue? And tying the two discussions together - isn't not-controlling violent kids (and instead, worrying about the "disruptive" effects of cross-dressing kids) what leads to the stupid things that 18-19 year-olds do that ends up with them in prison?

Roxy has found a new home! (updated)

2010-02-24T20:39:00.009-07:00

I adopted Roxy from the Humane Society of Boulder Valley in August 2009. Roxy is an approximately 1.5-year-old, 55-lb, suspected Labrador Retriever/Siberian Husky mix, though she might have some Bull Terrier in her as well. She was rescued as a stray in Kansas, and brought to HSBV.

However, my personal schedule has changed recently, which was not expected when I adopted her. I will be traveling for 7-8 weeks over the next four months: 2-4 weeks starting March 22, and five weeks starting in the last week of May. This is too long a period of time to board Roxy, both for cost and from the standpoint of her health. Further, Roxy's life with me is sub-optimal - she's either at home in my small condo, or on a leash outside, with only weekly visits to day care to let off steam.

Considering the combination of my upcoming travel and her quality of life, I tried to relinquish Roxy earlier this week to HSBV. But her multiple issues - most of them borderline, see below - deemed her unadoptable at HSBV.

Rather than euthanize her, I reclaimed Roxy, but with the explicit view of finding her a new home soon. Below, I describe her issues and good points, and hope that someone out there can take her up and provide her a good home.

Issues with Roxy: Roxy has gotten over her separation anxiety, though it took her about 6 months. Initially, she expressed her anxiety through scratching and pawing at the door for up to an hour, before tiring/giving up - nothing more destructive. (I have videos!)

In the last month or so, she has started misbehaving while at daycare (ankle-biting). She plays rough, and even if the other dog doesn't want to play, Roxy nips at him/her and starts a fight (thankfully, nothing serious yet). The attendants at Camp Bow-Wow put her down for a nap, which seems to help. I just realized that this misbehavior started after I took her off ClomiPRAMINE, which was supposed to help her get over the separation anxiety.

Roxy has also shown signs of guarding her food bowl and rawhide while at daycare and at the Humane Society, though never at home with me.

Now that Roxy's over her separation anxiety, she tends to run off exploring for up to an hour or more, if I let her off-leash. She returns when she's exhausted, but this means that I now keep her on-leash at all times - there's a school close by, and a loose dog that sorta looks like a pit bull terrier could scare kids (but definitely their parents!)

Roxy chases cats, but more out of curiosity. Still, I would not recommend a home with cats.

But Roxy's a good dog:

Roxy is great with people and kids, unless the person is a stranger with a large bag (she barks.)

She was house-broken when I got her, so someone owned her before she became a stray. She has been through the HSBV beginner's training class, and knows commands like sit, down, stay (working on recall.)

She usually plays well with similar-size/larger dogs and confident little dogs, though not with yappy little dogs or cats.

Now that she has spent a good length of time with me, she is OK left alone at home for 8 hours or so, though at the start of such days I run with her for about 3 miles and feed her with a frozen Kong.

I have only had her chew a couple things over the last 7 months, and that was when I was away for longer periods than usual. It could be that her experience as a stray made her rather self-reliant, and the switch back to domestic life, in addition to her energetic nature, makes her bored, resulting in gnawed furniture! I believe that if she had a largish yard to play in and explore, or another doggy companion or doggy daycare* 1-2 times/week, she'd be quite content, and leave the furniture alone.

I recently left her with friends for two weeks while I was out of town, and she quickly became attached to my male friend. She'd get somewhat anxious if he left the room, even if his wife was there. However, her anxiety manifests at a much lower level than it used to when I got her from HSBV. So any separation anxiety with a new owner might not be too bad.

*I have re-started Roxy on ClomiPRAMINE, but this drug takes 4-6 weeks to become effective. However, once she's on it, Roxy's misbehavior at daycare might likely reduce - while on ClomiPRAMINE, she was a great dog at daycare.

I will be working on her food bowl-guarding issues, with the aid of an HSBV trainer.

If you think you can provide Roxy a good home, please contact me: randomsubu AT gmail. Thanks!

UPDATE: Pictures! The three nice pictures were taken by Theron (notanyron) - thanks!

UPDATE 3/13/10: Roxy has found a new home! Thanks, Tabetha!

Buying local: books v/s music

2010-02-14T23:55:00.006-07:00

I went to the Pearl St Mall in downtown Boulder today - something I haven't had a chance to do the past few months, ever since I adopted Roxy. Now that Roxy seems to have gotten over her separation anxiety, I can go out again without too much worry.

Anyway, went to the Boulder Book Store. Each time I go to a physical book store, I feel that I should instead buy an e-book reader, since (a) no dead trees! and (b) local book store prices are usually way more than at Amazon, e-book or not. Still, I have bought a few books over the past couple years, partly out of a sense of supporting the local independent store, and partly if the title really interests me. In that sense, the local book store is great - allows me to browse through new and old titles quickly. I probably would not have looked for, or found, Padgett Powell's The Interrogative Mood, which I bought today. And I very likely would not have got a signed-first-edition through Amazon!

Still, I hesitated to buy Joseph Stiglitz' new book, Freefall. The book looks really interesting, but it's 42% cheaper through Amazon, and almost 65% off in the Kindle edition*. So I came away without the book. I figure the gentry that now occupy most of Boulder (and have raised property values in the city so much that I have to live in Gunbarrel) can shoulder the burden of keeping the local book store open...

Alas, that last option has not quite worked out for Bart's CD cellar. Tonight was their last night, going out of business and everything, including fixtures and furniture, on sale, 60-80% off marked prices. I ended up buying a dozen CD/sets and a pair of funky "beer-sunglasses" (for a friend!) for under $50. Good for me, not so for the local small-business environment. I have benefited on occasion from talking to the sales folks at the brick-and-mortar record stores, as they are usually quite knowledgeable. Still, iTunes and Amazon's (many free!) MP3 collections have diminished the local store's importance.

Or not? Is the local music store just as important as the local book store? Should I help keep the local book store open, even if it creates a significant dent in my wallet?

*I don't even have to own a Kindle to buy the Kindle edition - thanks to Kindle-for-PC, I now own a copy of Freefall.

Reasons why I refuse to call myself a liberal or progressive

2010-02-07T08:29:00.003-07:00

Usually, I find myself aligning more with Democratic/left positions, and consider myself extremely socially liberal. However, I do not call myself a progressive or liberal, because these labels apparently come with a set of positions I find annoying and even reprehensible. Here is a list of these positions, in no particular order:

1. “Bring the troops home/War is not the answer”: This is a nice slogan, but not a policy. For better or for worse, the US is involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the Obama administration [WH] is drawing down the troop levels in Iraq, this will take some time. As for Afghanistan, I agree with WH that Al-Qaeda/the Taliban need to be destroyed, and this theater includes Pakistan (where WH sends drones.) Pakistan at the very least has a functioning central government (not to mention a strong Army); Karzai's administration is still weak. Withdrawing US troops in a knee-jerk fashion now will only lead to more instability in the region, possibly allowing the Taliban/Al-Qaeda to return to their pre-9/11 ascendancy.

2. Single-payer healthcare/Medicare-for-All/public option: First, eliminating private insurance companies – effectively nationalizing the insurance industry – is just not going to happen. While the existing system has many deficiencies, a majority of Americans are generally happy with their healthcare. Nationalization of an integral part of people's lives is too radical a change that will not go down well especially for a Democratic WH. But second, and more importantly, Medicare-for-All will not contain costs – Atul Gawande's famous New Yorker article compares healthcare costs through the Medicare prism, and finds that existing Medicare can pay twice as much for care that is not much better, if not actually worse. Current healthcare reform legislation tries to correct many of the deficiencies of private sector insurance – caps, recissions, no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions – in addition to (AFAIK) delivery system reforms which really bend the cost curve. It would help if the Cornhusker kickback and other sweetheart deals (including that for unions*, see later) were removed from the legislation, but overall, just because the legislation does not achieve single-payer healthcare or include a public option is no reason to kill the bill.

(* I believe the union exemption is not yet part of the Senate bill, but a proposed fix in conference - not sure about its status in reconciliation fixes.)

3. “Unions are the greatest and can do no wrong!” - Unions provide a lot of important protections for their members, and collective bargaining gets better deals for workers. But unions also institute a hierarchy where pay rises with seniority, protect incompetent teachers/workers (Classrooms of Death), and have looked to better benefits in lieu of higher pay. Now that healthcare benefits may be taxed and at a flat rate rather than at the progressive income tax scales, these union-negotiated pay structures are looking really bad. This has apparently resulted in a sweetheart deal where union workers are exempted from the fee on healthcare benefits for a longer period than non-union workers, which makes everybody else angry. Remember, unions are a minority of households these days (just 12% of voters reported being part of a union as per the 2008 presidential election exit polls).

4. Finally, some liberals/progressives demand exactly the same purity tests as teabagging Republicans - “Alan Grayson for President, 2012!” These folks forget George McGovern's 1972 performance. Extremists – rather, public/outed extremists – rarely, if ever, win Presidential elections. And if you would rather lose a Presidency than compromise on ideology, just remember – SCOTUS appointments and other important priorities, like environmental protection, hang in the balance.

That's it for now. Your mileage will vary, for sure, and your comments are welcome – so long as they are civil and relevant to the content of this post. My moderation policy errs on the side of free speech.

Is Roxy finally over her "separation anxiety"?

2009-12-24T06:28:00.004-07:00

Yesterday, I recorded Roxy at home alone, to check on her behavior in this situation. Earlier, she used to scratch and paw at the front door for over 45 minutes. Of late, though, she has shown an independent streak, where she runs away outside the off-leash area (when I used to let her off-leash), and returns after 20-30 minutes. As Laurie put it, a confident dog like that doesn't have separation anxiety.

On the other hand, as a fellow dog-owner Katy said yesterday, when Roxy runs away, it is her choice, but when I leave her at home, it is not.

Apart from an occasional paw at the door, Roxy leaves the door alone. I had reprimanded her on a couple occasions when I caught her scratching at the door, so that could be discouraging her. But she quickly settles down on the couch, which tells me that discouragement is not the case (I'd expect her to wait by the door, otherwise.) Finally, Roxy does seem to want to return to the crate, where her water and a beef tendon spiral are. I did leave some water in her food bowl outside the crate, so the lack of water is not an issue (she finds it and drinks out of it.) Next time, I will try leaving the crate open.

Meeting the Dog Whisperer!

2009-12-18T19:15:00.004-07:00

Last week, Roxy got in trouble at the doggy day care. Apparently, she would sneak up on two dogs playing with each other, nip one of them in the ankle, and then run away! "Time-outs" (a minute or so in the kennel) didn't work. There was also an incident with a food-aggressive dog - the dog barked as Roxy was walking by, and Roxy barked back - but didn't stop even after the doggy day care person told her to stop. So Ben at the Dog Spot told me to talk to Laurie Buffington, "the state expert" on ankle-biting dogs...

I had a session with Laurie this morning, and it was quite interesting. Laurie observed that Roxy was a very social dog, but also a very confident, dominant dog (which I figured out earlier), and maybe has some pit or other "bully dog." So she's ready to take all comers... including a big, 100-lb wolf mix ("Quinn") Laurie has! Laurie had Roxy initially play with 1-yr-old Aussie shepherd. Then she let out 3 dogs, including a pit/Border Collie bitch and Quinn - and Roxy went straight at Quinn, with her paws up on his shoulders ("he's the leader, I will show him I am boss!") Thankfully, Quinn is extremely accustomed to strange dogs, so he just didn't show any reaction (aka "what, me worry?"!)

Laurie said the dominant trait also makes Roxy think she has to keep other dogs in their place, hence her bark-fest with the food-aggressive dog.

Laurie observed that Roxy had a spinal-hackles-raised (forget the exact term), with the hair along her entire spine raised most of the time she was playing with the Aussie. This is apparently a state of high arousal, not aggression, but can quickly turn into a fight. At day care, this state persists for hours on end, so she's never turned OFF, even at home.

Also, I walk or run loose-leash with Roxy, which gives her a lot more freedom than she should have *now*, and allows her to chase squirrels or lunge at other dogs, unmindful of what I am doing, even across me.

Laurie gave me a few leadership articles, and recommended I run or walk Roxy on a short leash, till she walks by me - she essentially has to learn that I am pack leader, and she has to ask me for permission to greet other dogs (or do anything at all.) Also, Laurie recommended I keep Roxy in the crate, using it (or "tethering") to keep her calm, and also get her used to the crate as a fact of life. She suggested that Roxy doesn't scratch and maul the door because of separation anxiety, but because she wants to get out and do her thing. On walks, make Roxy remain calm when she sees other dogs (which will also help tire her out mentally.) And maybe use a vinegar/water spray (especially at day care) or time-outs to dissuade her if she even thinks of any bad behavior.

Lots of work ahead... Thankfully, Roxy was prevented from ankle-biting this week at the Dog Spot - the handlers put her in time-out if she even appeared to be thinking about it.

On dogs meeting each other

2009-10-01T17:37:00.005-06:00

I am leaning toward keeping Roxy, but in the mean time, thought I would jot down a few thoughts on dogs meeting each other. Keep in mind that I am no dog expert, and I could be wrong - I welcome rational, polite comments.

Roxy is generally playful, and plays rough, according to the doggy daycare folks. But she usually gets along great with dogs of her size or bigger; they keep her away from small dogs as she has a tendency to chase them.

The last few days she has not been at day care everyday, because I am trying to reduce her time there (gets too expensive; see my previous blog post.) I did leave her at another daycare for a couple hours on Tuesday. My being sick means I don't run with her either - just long (30-45 minute) walks. The cold weather also means there are fewer dogs around the nearby lakes, and I don't let her off-leash because if she runs off (as she has done earlier), it's too cold and I am too sick to chase her around.

So today, on an afternoon walk, there were a few other dogs. The first was a German Shepherd, also on a leash (in the on-leash section). Roxy was excited to meet another dog, but the German Shepherd remained calm. Both dogs sniffed each other, and moved on.

The second "meeting" was in the off-leash lake, with a pair of black, furry, big dogs (not sure which breed). They were off-leash; Roxy was on-leash. Roxy tried to play with them, as they were chasing a ball thrown by their owner. One dog reacted badly - growling and baring his teeth. Removed Roxy from the scene, and walked on.

Circling the lake in opposite directions, we ran into the black dogs again. Knowing the earlier meeting, I kept Roxy on-leash, though I was tempted to let her off earlier (this was a section of the lake with good fencing.) Unfortunately, too close - Roxy again tried to approach one of the dogs, maybe the same dog. Same reaction. Roxy starts growling as well.

Second owner says: "Why do let him go at him if you know that's going to happen?" Slight back-and-forth, as I defend Roxy, but she isn't helping my case by trying to free herself of her new "easy walk harness", jumping and rolling on the ground.

Here's my take. In an off-leash park, dogs will approach each other. In an ideal world, each dog will be polite and walk quietly. But this is the real world, and Roxy's still a puppy (just over a year old). So she tries to play with every other dog, and doesn't always approach other dogs calmly; that is something I have to teach her.

If the other dog is mature, or well-socialized, the reaction is positive; as in the German Shepherd's case. If not - the black dog's reaction is what we get. So here's what I say: If your dog reacts badly to other dogs approaching him or her, then maybe your dog should not be off-leash, especially in an off-leash park.

Of course, one could say I should not take her to the off-leash park either; but at the least, I keep her on leash. And now on, I will keep her far away from unknown dogs, even if she fights me trying to get closer.

Sink or swim week in my adoption experience

2009-09-26T01:41:00.003-06:00

I adopted a Labrador retriever/Siberian Husky mix from the Humane Society almost two months ago, called Roxy. Roxy's a pretty good dog - housebroken, great with kids, reasonably smart. But she has separation anxiety, and I have been working with the Humane Society trainers on that; in addition, I've had her on anti-anxiety medication (Clomipramine/Clamiprazole). But the past week hasn't been good, and this is an e-mail I sent earlier today to the HSBV trainer:

----------------
It's been a while since we spoke about my HSBV adoptee, Roxy. Mainly because work has been hectic, so I have to some extent put off the problem of separation anxiety with doggy day care five days/week. I have got Roxy up to about 5-6 minutes of separation, though I haven't tested longer durations. A couple of times she displayed some anxiety even during those five minutes - she was standing up in her crate as I walked out the door, and whined throughout. On a later try, though, she was initially anxious, but then settled down. I suppose the Clamiprazole (spelling?) should be kicking in about now, which should help.

I was writing mainly to give you a heads-up and ask for any advice you have. This week, Roxy has not been visibly happy to see me - I use her tailwagging as a marker, but one can tell even otherwise. She seems happy to meet random strangers on the road during her walks, or when she enters the Dog Spot and greets Shannon or Ann. But when I go to pick her up, she's less enthused; earlier she used to try and jump on me, but these days it's more a "meh!" attitude. When I try to pet her at home, she's very reluctant to come over, and just turns over and lets me rub her belly or whatever - what I interpret as "let's get this over with." At the same time, if I get up and move around, she keeps an eye on me, which tells me she isn't over her separation anxiety.

I keep thinking of reasons - I am the fun Nazi who doesn't allow her to chase cats/squirrels/hares, takes her away from doggy daycare where she plays; or she's just tired/burnt out from day care that when she gets home, she just wants to curl up and sleep. The only time I see a slow wag is if I have a treat or am taking her out for a walk.

Obviously, I am not too thrilled with the situation, and it's not a good time, given that if I want to have her at doggy day care next week, I'll have to pony up more $$$ (and at $480 for a month...). So I will work with her more over the weekend, and next week it will be sink-or-swim time for Roxy and me. I plan on leaving her at home while I go to work, and if she's OK staying alone, fine. Otherwise - if she's happier with other people, we don't seem to be bonding, and she just "needs" me but doesn't "want" me, I don't see why I should keep pouring my time and money into her. It's like a bad marriage...

Any advice/tips would be appreciated. I'd be happy to come in and talk, if that would help - I really want this to work. She's a great dog otherwise - housebroken, a reasonably good learner, good with my friends' kids.
----------------

Sink or swim. [Though as a friend pointed out, since I am already looking at HSBV cats, I might have made up my mind. OTOH, I have also been looking at HSBV dogs for a companion to Roxy if required, so I don't know... She also says that maybe I am just not a dog person, and Roxy senses that. Who knows?!]

My (current) take on healthcare reform

2009-09-09T07:45:00.006-06:00

Some folks on the left are saying "public option or bust" - no healthcare reform without the public option. I am not so sure this is the right way to go, or even if the public option is such a great deal. Some thoughts on current proposals:

1. Healthcare reform can include a condition of "no pre-existing conditions". This in itself would be a huge improvement over the current state of affairs.

2. #1 necessitates a universal mandate to be "fair" to the insurance companies; if they have to take the sick, they should have adequate "pay-in"s from healthy people.

3. #2 implies federal subsidies for those who can't afford to pay insurance premiums, including expansion of Medicaid.

4. #3 means the money has to come from somewhere - possibly efficiencies in Medicare, including getting rid of "Medicare Advantage" - which would be a loss for insurance companies, but better use of our tax dollars.

5. Removal of annual/lifetime caps on out-of-pocket expenses would be great (what's that about half of current bankruptcies occurring due to medical bills?)

All of these five objectives seem pretty good to me.

Now, #3 can also be taken to mean "we need a public option" to avoid insurance companies increasing premiums/denying care to increase their profits (which already happens). But how will a public option work? Say it can't deny care as freely as private for-profits. That means insurance premiums will likely rise each year (or else we get rationing of care*). Otherwise, the public option operates at a loss, which means subsidies are needed from the federal government to keep the public option solvent. Which means private companies could be driven out of business, and we eventually get to single-payer (if you are a liberal)/a government take0ver of healthcare (if you are a conservative).

* Unlike what Tom Coburn says, a non-profit public option will be less likely to ration care than a for-profit private insurance company for the same premiums.

Couple of other thoughts:

1. If you really want single-payer, say that and work for it - don't be try to force a backdoor entry with the public option.

2. One alternative I like is a universal, minimum-benefits/catastrophic insurance public option. Private companies can offer this level of service, as well as better coverage for higher premiums.

3. If I understand correctly, the public option and other reforms don't even come into effect till 2013 (coincidentally, *after* POTUS election.) So if a triggered-public-option is offered that also comes into effect in 2013 if insurance companies don't clean up their act - why not? One answer offered is that the trigger may be too hard to press (Senator Ben Nelson has already said "we don't want a hair-trigger." We don't want an inoperative trigger either.) So the devil's in the details - the language of the trigger has to be very clear - and impose stringent rules on private insurers.

4. I think the "fees on insurance companies' "Cadillac" plans" is a chicken-s*** way of raising individual taxes, and I am annoyed that liberals like Schumer/Rockefeller and Max Baucus are proposing this. These fees *will* be passed on to the consumer, and likely to *all* consumers. This is a backdoor tax, and I'd rather see a tax on individuals with these Cadillac plans; "if you want this gold-plated option, you gotta pay for it."

I'd love to hear President Obama say #2 in today's speech; it seems similar to what some proposals say, but the message coming out of DC is way too complex and doesn't state this as clearly as I think I have.

As for #3 - I'd be open to setting up non-profit co-ops *now*, and evaluating their performance in 5 years - if they don't work, amalgamate the co-ops into a public option in 2013.

Doggie Dash 4K - running with Roxy!

2009-08-22T17:27:00.001-06:00

Click Here to Donate

Healthcare reform debate on Larry King Live

2009-08-19T19:38:00.003-06:00

This post was too long for a Tweet, hence the rare foray back into (non-micro) blogging!

Just happened to catch a Larry King show with Elizabeth Edwards (yes, her!) and Tommy Thompson. The few minutes I was able to bear went something like this:

Thompson: Everybody can be covered with tax credits. Competition between private insurers will bring costs down.

Edwards: Well, the last time Republicans had the chance to reform anything in healthcare, they didn't allow the federal government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs, protecting the private companies at the cost of consumers.

Thompson: Republicans want to protect consumers, Democrats want to destroy the healthcare system.

Larry King: You both are wonderful.

Dumbass. I switched instantly.

Switching media...

2009-06-23T23:07:00.002-06:00

As I have mentioned earlier, I am also on Twitter. But these days, I rarely blog, and instead just Tweet my thoughts. Of course, this means there aren't any long(-winded?) analyses of news/events, just whatever fits into 140 characters! And it tends to be transient - I am likely just one of many Twits you follow, so it's easy to miss my thoughts.

But that's OK - it's not like many folks read me regularly anyway. Might as well face the truth.

Never tell me things can't get worse!

2009-05-07T22:09:00.007-06:00

As the title says. Back at IIT-B, one of my seniors said, "don't worry, Professor X never gives lower than a BB." Guess what I got? A BC. Story of my life - breaking barriers no-one should!

Today was another one of those days. Started off with a severe cramp in one leg, which got worse through the day, and is only now easing off. Still, I doubt I will hit the gym tomorrow.

Next, I hear from my landlady about extending my lease. These days, I am trying to buy a condo, but haven't had much success. Figured I'd try to get a month-to-month lease. But my landlady's position was that she couldn't let me stay beyond my current lease, which ends June 30, for two reasons: (a) it's hard to rent the apartment in the middle of the school year (fair enough); and (b) she wants to refurbish the apartment in between my departure and arrival of the new tenant. I managed to talk her into letting me stay till July 10. This means I have to find a condo by the first week of June, close on July 1 or 2, and move in the week after that. Do-able...

Except - I might be in North Carolina the end of June/beginning of July for experiments at the EPA! So that's going to be an especially joyous time... Might have to live at an extended-stay hotel for a couple weeks while I find another place, unless things fall into place in June.

Things then got even better. A new policy at work - everybody's documents will be moved to the server, ostensibly for easier back-ups both on- and off-site. This might be OK for most people who just work with M$ Office and kb-sized documents. But I work with data - and GOBS of it. Even with Gigabit Ethernet, I am not sure I trust running my >500 MB Igor experiments, which access GB-sized data files, off the server over the network. [This is not like running experiments on a supercomputer/mainframe - my local CPU will still be running the processes, just transferring *data*, not commands, to-and-from the server.] In addition, if automated, regular back-up was the purpose of this move, I haven't seen anything implemented yet for the TBs of data I have on my desktop and numerous external hard-drives (more like a few hundred GBs, backed up on different hard-drives - I know my s***!) Ended up copying My Documents back to my local computer. Given the slow network speeds, that was a frustrating 3 hours I didn't want to spend today.

Things can't get worse, right? D-oh! I finally get a review on my recent submission, and it seems a nasty one. Though the paper was reviewed internally by 4 other PhDs (including 3 senior scientists/faculty members) before submission, apparently the paper lacks clarity and organization. The reviewer stopped short of rejecting the paper, but at the end of this day, s/he might as well have.

Got back home, tried to watch TV... Can't get my mind off the review. Ended up working on it, taking notes of what I need to do, and found most comments relatively easy to address, even though more data analysis is required. Oh well. At least I feel better now. 12yo Glenfiddich helps.

Maybe I will indeed get a pet soon - a King Charles spaniel, maybe, who loves me unconditionally (except for the food part, of course), irrespective of whether my submissions suck, and will always let me know I am a great guy, with no "but..."

National political environment assessment by GOP agency

2009-05-04T08:13:00.004-06:00

Wilson Research Strategies, a Republican outfit, just released an assessment of the national political environment for May. (via @PatrickRuffini) Mainly, they say while Obama remains personally popular, folks are not as supportive of his policies, which, they say, makes him like Carter and not Clinton. Also, apparently Obama is not helping Congressional Democrats, which leaves them optimistic about the GOP's chances of regaining control of the House in 2010 - assuming the GOP develops an overarching response to the Obama administration, rather than a piecemeal approach.

A few questions and observations:

1. Slide 10 - "independents beginning to have doubts" - Obama's approval rating among Independents is relatively steady at ~60% (slide 9), so this statement isn't correct.

2. The "Obama is most polarizing President" meme - slide 11 - has been hashed over many-a-time. In short, Obama is more popular among Democrats than any previous President, and the Republicans these days are just the hard Conservative core (e.g. the Arlen Specter party switch), so obviously they don't like anything Obama does.

3. Slide 14: Are Obama's ratings more like Carter or Clinton? No comparables are provided.

4. Slide 16: Only 6% think negatively of Obama for "not reaching out to Republicans." Clearly, Obama doesn't have to worry about appearing partisan!

5. Slide 17: WRS says support for Obama's economic policies is soft. But only 21% oppose President Obama's economic policies! The rest either support Obama and/or his policies (knowing or hoping they work), or support Obama for what he's trying to do, though they doubt his policies will work. (And I thought teabaggers were a MAJORITY of the population! /snark)

6. Opposition to bailouts and impact of teaparties in slides 22-23: I sure would like to see non-Rasmussen polls for these questions. Ras has a known house effect in favor of Republicans, even going so far as to pen an anti-Obama WSJ op-ed while claiming to be an independent pollster. [See Mark Blumenthal/Charles Franklin for a detailed explication of Rasmussen's WSJ claims.]

However, it is an interesting look at one Republican viewpoint, and it definitely is a way for Republicans to frame the debate so that they regain power. Question is, will they be able to overcome, in particular, the Obama administration, which has proved very adept at communicating their policies with the public. As proof, see #5/Slide 17.

Obama's 1st-100-days presser

2009-04-29T18:11:00.003-06:00

Quick thoughts as I listen to the 100-day-presser:

1. First question on H1N1 swine flu - praises Bush administration for preparedness following bird flu! Self-identifies as part of a group of Congressmen who worked with Bush admin. for this.

2. "I'd like to get the US government out of the auto business as soon as possible!" Seems to know what's happening at Chrysler, well-prepared.

3. On torture, recalls an article about ~200 prisoners in Britain during WWII, and Churchill apparently saying "we don't torture." And did previous administration sanction torture? "Waterboarding was torture and prev. admin.'s reasonings were a mistake."

"Public reports that info was obtained through torture do not answer question whether info could be obtained without torture, and whether torture made us safer. Will do whatever is needed to keep people safe, but without taking shortcuts that undermine who we are."

4. Chuck Todd wants to move to Pakistan? No, just a question on Pak nuclear arsenal falling into Taliban hands. POTUS more concerned about fragility of civilian government not able to deliver basic services. Should move away from thinking of India as mortal threat, and focus on Taliban/Al-Qaeda militancy (agreed - RS.) Not going to engage in hypotheticals about securing Pak nukes.

5. Specter!! (But he just voted NO on budget! What filibuster-proof majority?! - RS) Congress is an equal branch of government, will have to compromise with opinionated Senators. But bipartisanship does not mean accepting same failed principles of past eight years!

6. Abortion: moral+ethical issue. Not just about women's freedom!? Other factors as well, which women have to wrestle with on individual basis, they don't take it lightly, hence pro-choice.

7. Surprised by so many problems coming to head at same time, 7-8 big problems when typical POTUS has 2-3. Troubled by slow pace of change in DC. Enchanted!? Service men and women - not enchanted, but proud and grateful [Would have expected servicemen/women mention for humbled - RS.] Humbled by... missed it - POTUS has extraordinary power?? Ship of state is an oceanliner/battleship - takes a while to move. Humbled by patience of American people [AHHH.... the other safe answer! - RS].

8. Immigration reform! Illegal immigration means exploitation of Mexican workers crossing dangerous border even as they depress US wages. Need to work with Gutierrez and McCain? Get people out of the shadows. Maybe no legislation this year, but process will get started.

9. Black male unemployment rate in NYC is 50%!? POTUS: Every step we are taking is designed to help *all* people, but those who need most help will get most help? [Does Obama avoid answering in any way that might indicate favoritism toward Blacks? Recall question from Black woman during primaries, about immigrants stealing jobs from minorities. Typical White POTUS might have answered differently.]

10. State secrets doctrine criticized by candidate Obama but used by POTUS Obama's Justice. Why? Need to finesse that blunt instrument. [Not sure Dahlia Lithwick/Slate would agree... We need Open Government, right? - RS]

11. Like any shareholder, American taxpayers have right to see how money's being spent. If Japs can create hybrids, so can Americans, doggone it! [All too true! - RS]

12. "If I were given humming auto industry/banks, but have to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, NKorea... and a pandemic, I'd take that deal! I don't want to grow government, I want a lean government!"

Nicely done. He was well-prepared, and used humor as appropriate. Not as much follow-up questions, but took about 15 questions. Yes, I definitely like this as a regular feature - screw Faux News if they don't want to broadcast it.

Obama and the Bush torture memos

2009-04-17T22:04:00.002-06:00

This week, the Government released 4 Bush-era "torture" memos - legal advice from the Justice Department lawyers authorizing torture techniques to be used on GWoT detainees. President Obama apparently suggested a "forget and move on" policy, angering many on the Left. Dahlia Lithwick, as always, has a great read on this issue. Lithwick quotes President Obama:

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence.

Emphasis added by me. Lithwick also quotes Keith Olbermann:

This country has never 'moved forward with confidence' without first cleansing itself of its mistaken past. In point of fact, every effort to merely draw a line in the sand and declare the past dead has served only to keep the past alive and often to strengthen it.

Lithwick observes that the 3 memos that came out in 2005 "reinstated the torture regime Bradbury's predecessor, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew in 2004 for being "sloppily reasoned" and "legally flawed"" precisely because the earlier torture memo did not result in any penalty.

This take from Lithwick is precisely the reaction I had to President Obama's "forget and move on" suggestion. The entire premise of law-and-order - penalizing people for crimes they commit - is not just punishment, but also deterrence of future criminal acts. Not that it stops many criminals, but still. So is President Obama saying we should not take criminals - of any kind, white collar lawyers, blue collar commoners - to task? If someone kills 20 people, let's try to put it behind us and move on?

All this fulminating may well come to nought, however. As Lithwick observes, it may not even be possible to prosecute either the lawyers who gave this bad "torture is legal" advice or the actual people who tortured - because the former did not torture, and the latter were assured by their superiors that what they were doing was legal! And yet... as Lithwick reiterates: "the real risk of getting over it is the possibility that it happens all over again."

Focus of US troops in Afghanistan

2009-04-12T16:59:00.002-06:00

Congressman Polis wrote a post about his recent trip to Afghanistan. He objects to the troop surge, since they apparently are not fighting Al-Qaeda. I am a little puzzled, hence this comment - which I was unable to post on his blog at SquareState.net:

Jared:
You probably have a better idea of what the US troops are expected to do in Afghanistan, but I didn't see that in this post. I thought they were supposed to fight Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and train Afghan troops - not occupy the country like Iraq. A bit hard to occupy Afghanistan with just 70k troops - half the deployment in Iraq, which has a similar population, and dare I say, friendlier terrain.
As an aside, till you get to go back and move freely, I'd recommend a neat Indian movie - Kabul Express. I would be glad to lend you my copy the next time you return to Boulder :-)

On local media: The Deuce

2009-04-07T09:06:00.004-06:00

Recently, KWGN/Ch2 rebranded itself The Deuce, and moved its programming around. The local news is at 7.00 PM instead of 9.00 PM earlier (itself a head start on the usual 10.00 PM newshour.) This meant I was quite confused last Thursday when I switched on the telly and didn't find Smallville - instead, talk about the Cutler saga. So I was bummed for a while.

Some thoughts off the top of my head:

1. Maybe a 7.00 PM newshour is a good time - so I can watch something else at 7.00 PM and not miss my Ch2 shows.

- Gossip Girl!? vs The Big Bang Theory/How I Met Your Mother? Still, I watch Two-and-a-Half Men at 8.00 PM - sorry, but CBS wins Monday nights.

- Still, I can come home late from work, before 8.00 PM, and not miss The Reaper or Smallville (though the latter should be pulled... Grow the frak up, Superman!)

2. On the other hand - just watched Daybreak on Deuce, the morning show. What I liked was its focus on local stuff - where NBC has Today or CBS/ABC have their national morning shows, The Deuce appears to have a purely-local morning hour (maybe I am wrong.) But I much prefer to hear from Denver Mayor Hickenlooper on the TV - I get my national news online, and much of the national morning shows are blather anyway.

3. If Ch2 wanted to pull me in for the 7.00 PM newshour - I'd like a focus on local issues, maybe coverage of local businesses or even better, the arts scene. Maybe have one of the many local bands play, along with a brief interview, and tease it via Tweets all day long. Maybe the 7.00 PM newshour does this anyway, but I don't know about it (hence, the Tweasers!)

Off to work!

On climate change, and "The civil heretic" - Freeman Dyson

2009-03-29T11:30:00.004-06:00

The NYT magazine has a long profile on Freeman Dyson, particularly his skepticism on the ill-effects and severity of climate change. Dyson suggests engineering carbon-eating trees (consuming CO2 more than normal), apparently an idea he had a couple decades back. Among other things, he suggests climate warming may be good (e.g. making Greenland more habitable), while solutions to reduce anthropogenic climate warming - moving away from carbon fuels, particularly coal - are disadvantageous to developing economies like China (and, presumably, India/Africa.)

Reading the article, a couple things struck me. First, most climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change* is real and dangerous; hence the IPCC consensus report. However, this perhaps makes certain scientists treat this consensus as orthodoxy to be rebeled against; certainly this appears to be one reason for Dyson's opposition. [There's perhaps also a romantic notion that science is really about one person with a good idea, as a colleague described Michael Crichton's opposition to anthropogenic climate change. What such folks don't realize is that this one person could also be dead wrong.]

Second, and again another reason for Dyson's opposition, is that the solution requires enormous changes in the current fossil fuel-based infrastructure (never mind Dyson's own idea for a massive energy-collecting shell orbiting a star - talk about enormous!) Replacing the entire carbon infrastructure at one go is, indeed, a major task, which will frighten government bean counters and the public alike (though politicians do like huge solutions.)

What I would suggest, instead, is a combination of (a) carbon sequestration; (b) nuclear energy; and (c) decentralized/local energy solutions. Carbon sequestration allows continued use of cheap coal and oil, while reducing or eliminating CO2 emissions (what I understand by "clean coal"). Second, nuclear energy is, in the long run, the only safe, large-scale energy source to provide for the aspirations of the billions living in China, India and Africa (clumping all African nations into one here, and why not?) Third, distributed, decentralized energy sources like wind energy, geothermal, even solar, are probably more efficient than a central coal or nuclear energy plant that depends on a lossy transmission grid, while moving us toward a renewable energy structure that might perhaps be more comforting to opponents of nuclear energy.

Finally, there are good reasons to move to non-carbon energy outside of climate considerations. First, that fossil fuels are limited, and will run out - if not in the next 50 years, likely in a couple of centuries. Second, and more immediate, national security - countries like the US and India cannot continue to depend on an unstable Middle East or Venezuela for their growing energy needs. This last reason alone should be good enough to convince most right-wing skeptics (and folks like Dyson, who loves Obama and loathes Bush!) of the need for a non-carbon energy future.

*I am uncomfortable with the term "global warming" - because while the average temperature of the earth will increase, regional changes will be different due to the effects of aerosols and other factors. Some places will get much hotter, others will get colder. Hence, my insistence on climate change.

For the good old days...

2009-03-25T20:58:00.002-06:00

...yes, I am talking about The Wonder Years! [Though I was probably 14-15 when it was shown in India. Yes, even 14 or 15 would be better.]

President Obama's second prime-time press conference

2009-03-24T18:58:00.004-06:00

Thoughts and observations from Obama's second prime-time press conference which just concluded: (This started as tweets!)

1. Obama giving people follow-up questions - good! But he still manages to avoid drawing lines - like not signing budget w/o cap-n-trade! [Except perhaps for #3 below?]

2. Bush used Tony Blair/Aussie ex-PM Howard to support his Iraq War. Obama used Aussie PM Kevin Rudd/ British PM Gordon Brown to support global stimulus spending!

3. Capping charitable deductions: Obama finally said it - tax deductions should not be the determining factor in giving! Also, 28% is still a good tax break!

4. Obama called on Major Garrett of Fox - and now, someone from the Wa Times! Ain't avoiding them, for sure...

5. On the Washington Times question, about stem cells: Obama struck a suitably grim tone, while explaining the use of embryos that would otherwise be discarded (not grown specifically to generate stem cells) to explore treatments for debilitating diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Also acknowledged progress with adult stem cells, and moral/ethical considerations in addition to scientific criteria.

6. Question about deficit rising after year 4-5 (by when - 2012! - it should be cut in half): That's because savings in entitlements (Medicare/Medicaid) won't be apparent till after 10-year window. But have to make investments in education, energy and health care to improve economy and ensure growth, which will reduce deficits. Otherwise will continue to have structural deficits such as entitlements without economic growth.

7. Ann Compton of ABC News was surprised to be called on - wonder why? Because Obama had already asked "Jake" (Tapper!) a question?

8. Finished with a question from the AFP on the Israel-Palestine conflict with the new hardline Israeli government - "certainly hasn't made [a solution] easier!" But said persistence is key. Though - Obama appeared to use Geithner's toxic assets plan as an example of persistence! Is that good or bad for Geithner?!

Overall, I am liking this more and more - I hope Obama does a monthly televised presser. Just hope he moves on beyond now-cliched campaign talking points - "go line by line to eliminate waste" should be replaced with specific examples.

Meet and greet with Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)

2009-03-14T19:45:00.004-06:00

A couple days back I got an e-mail about Senator Bennet's visit to Boulder (Bennet wiki). Bennet is the replacement for now-Secretary Ken Salazar, and will be up for election in 2010.

The gathering was at a South Boulder/Shanahan Ridge home, about 6 miles away. Figured I'd ride my bike - unfortunately, it was uphill for a good bit, and the ride took me about 40 minutes. At least it was a good day for a bike ride!

Senator Bennet gave a speech, and I got in toward the end. Told a couple cute stories about his kids - he was head of the Denver public school system before his appointment to the Senate. Then there was a Q&A session.

A wide range of questions - climate change/cap-and-trade (he will vote for it), card check (undecided), school system reform (said existing system was not working except for some pockets - presumably, like Denver). Someone asked about bank nationalization, and he said "at 80% owned by the federal government, it's pretty much nationalized!" [Talking about AIG; the US government owns 36% of Citi.] But the fear of "socialism" keeps them from calling nationalization just that. Talked about how he was considered for the Education Secretary's post that eventually went to Arne Duncan, and how Obama personally called him (Bennet) to tell him he was not selected. Bennet was apparently one of the early supporters of Obama's presidential bid, so "nobody can try to separate me from Obama!"

A peace-nik asked him about President Obama's plans for Afghanistan - "war is not the answer!" His response - there are dangerous elements in Afghanistan and along the border with Pakistan, so "you and I are probably not on the same page at this time." Yay!

As expected, with a crowd of about 100, time ran out. He remained for a few minutes, talking with people, and I got a chance to say hello. Thanked him for his reply to the Afghanistan question - he said yes, we can't just up-and-leave. [Words to that effect.]

He asked me where I was from - "India." "Which part?" "Bombay." "I was born in Delhi!" His father worked in the US Consulate in the 60s, so his parents lived there for 4 years, he was there for one. He apparently visited India in the '90s; "I would love to go back!" You should, Senator!

Definitely not a typical politician, but as he himself said, he won't be for a couple years (as people keep reminding him he was only appointed!) Oh well (to his eventual conversion). I like him, though, and who knows - maybe I might even campaign for him!

Academia: A Ponzi scheme?

2009-03-08T09:31:00.003-06:00

An article in the NYT today talks about PhD scholars, typically in the humanities, not expecting a good faculty and even postdoc job market. Important factors include:

1. The rough economy reducing funding for academic hires (this is true, from personal experience.)

2. With 401k values tanking with the stock market, older faculty members putting off retirement.

3. Reduced funding in general, and difficulty of raising external funding for certain fields such as the humanities.

An associate professor of English at Hope College, William Pannapacker, actually counsels students not to pursure graduate education in the humanities, unless they are independently wealthy or well-connected. [Hey, I'd agree with that!]

A thought occurred to me - could academia be a ponzi scheme? Each professor has 3-4 graduate students at any given time, getting a PhD. Not all of them want faculty positions - seeing the workload of, particularly, tenure-track faculty has scared quite a few people off that idea. I don't know what the fraction of the group does want a faculty position, either (if I did a little research, maybe I could find out... But this is a blog, not an education journal article!) But if each existing faculty member in a research university graduates a faculty job-seeking PhD every 3-4 years, then there will be far more applicants than jobs. After all, there are only so many universities with so many students - that need only a set number of faculty members.

This is something we see every day - 80-100 applicants or more for each opening; chemistry PhDs putting out 30 applications or more in hopes of getting 2-3 interviews and *maybe* one offer.

Even PhDs who don't want a faculty position will likely face a stagnant job market - there are only so many research labs. Further, with a surplus supply and a reduced demand, wages will not be what PhDs might consider appropriate. [Even lower than "just" engineers? Yes.]

And of course, the advisors don't reduce their graduate student intake - how could they, since they want to get research done?

When supply keeps outstripping demand, and the disparity only grows with time - does that resemble a ponzi scheme? Admittedly, that is just the latest Madoff-inspired buzzword, but at the very least, it looks like a pyramid scheme. Am I wrong? Or did I just have another epiphany?

[This could just be sour grapes, of course.]

Buying a home in Boulder

2009-02-28T00:23:00.003-07:00

Boulder is an expensive place to buy a home - a 3BR home normally goes for $400-500k. Folks often live in nearby places like Louisville, where prices can be half that in Boulder (I think).

The recent housing crisis, as far as I could tell, hasn't affected the Boulder market - prices here stayed about the same. Now there's definitive proof this is indeed the case: a local realtor, Neil Kearney, writes that Boulder ranks 17th nationally in APpreciation! The annual home price appreciation is 2.99% in Boulder, compared to a nationwide DEpreciation of over 8%. He even has a graph...

So if I want to keep living inside Boulder - I have to keep renting. Oh well.

On Twitter now!

2009-02-26T23:04:00.005-07:00

So finally - after even my sister* signed up - I now Twitter. The best line award, though, goes to SA in response to my saying so on FB: "Did you twitter that you were going to update your facebook status?"

Twitter seems better suited to quick thoughts... even more abbreviated than blogging! Like my getting pissed at Senator Judd Gregg claiming POTUS is raising taxes on *everybody* - right after POTUS announces no raise for people earning less than $250k. Same content, quicker, still not worth following...?

*My sister is no technophobe - but she only recently started blogging ;-)

Obama's State of the Nation address

2009-02-24T20:19:00.006-07:00

Just watched Obama's first address to Congress. Pretty good, I thought - and I went through two beers cheering him (even stopped drinking about 2/3-rds of the way through!)

Most important: "Get a high school diploma - for your country!" Encouraging every American to get at least a year of education after, whether 4-year/community college, vocational training, etc. And another push for his "tuition subsidy for community service" idea. Asked Congress to get the Hatch-Kennedy bill to his desk (what is that about?)

Second - health care reform can't wait any more, not a hundred years after Teddy Roosevelt first said reform must occur (at least, I think the Teddy R reference was to health care reform!)

Third - renewable energy sources, with equipment made here in the US (not batteries from Korea). Shame that China is apparently spending more on energy than anyone else (IIRC.) I wonder if that will worry folks about protectionism...

Of course, talk about the economic stimulus plan, details for the housing and banking recovery plans. Especially reducing yearly mortgages by $2000/average American family. Mentioned that Minnesota has 57 police officers on the roads due to the ESP.

And reducing the federal deficit by half during this term - but emphasizing repeatedly that folks making less than $250,000/year would not see a tax raise (a campaign promise).

I liked the address, obviously!

Bobby Jindal's up. Sounds weird, like an exaggerated American accent. The usual Republican clap-trap. Computers for the Feds - that provides more business for companies and their suppliers and workers! And as the POTUS points out, Jindal's complaining about 1-2% of the ESP, and using that to paint the rest of the effort with a broad brush.

Jindal's talking about $4 gas - saying we need to improve energy efficiency, increase renewable energy, and "drill, baby, drill!" Guess what - the ESP tries to do that, at least two of the three. Too bad he won't admit it.

Jindal's spouting boiler-plate Republican theology ("he will raise taxes!" - nevermind what Obama said about the 250k limit, see above), without addressing the actual POTUS speech, clearly playing politics. Sad.

Update: Here's the full SOTN address:

Politics in the guise of science?

2009-02-24T07:59:00.003-07:00

John Tierney writes in the NYT about Roger Pielke's assertion that scientists pretend to be neutral experts, while pushing their own political agenda through their research. The best example, of course, is climate change - where Tierney suggests members of the public have differing solutions due to "conflicting values about which sacrifices are worthwhile today."

One of Pielke's solutions, which he says is research not being funded, is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, as an alternative to a proposed "cap-and-trade" system. To quote from the NYT article:

"Yet research into this strategy has received little financing in past budgets or the new stimulus package because it doesn’t jibe with the agenda of either side in the global-warming debate. Greens don’t want this sort of “technological fix”; their opponents don’t want to admit there’s anything to fix. And neither side’s advocates will compromise as long as they think that science will prove them right."

Two things:

(1) Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is inherently less efficient than controlling these emissions at the source. That is the same reason that (I believe) solar energy will never provide the end-all solution to the energy crisis - there's lots of it, but too dilute to be effectively trapped. I don't know what assumptions or methods Pielke used; I think I have mentioned this problem to Pielke at a seminar he gave at CU, and he might have acknowledged this fact.

(2) Trapping CO2 from the atmosphere - who pays? I am not sure, but it could be everybody. The French, who use a lot of nuclear energy (that doesn't emit CO2). Or even people within the US, who use wind energy or other alternative energy sources that don't emit CO2. At least with programs that prevent CO2 emissions in the first place, we know who pays - the emitter, and the users of that emitter's product.

Now, for all I know, Pielke might just be advocating that these alternative ideas are not being funded as (in his opinion) they should be (at worst, he could be complaining that his research isn't getting funded). At the very least, they deserve to be looked into, for sure (including seemingly crackpot ideas like putting scattering aerosol into the atmosphere). And some removal of CO2 from the atmosphere might well be essential; controlling future emissions may not be enough, as CO2 currently being emitted (or emitted in the past) sticks around for a 100 years.

The best solution is to prevent the problem from even occurring ("prevention is better than cure"), and hence reducing CO2 emissions at the source remains, as far as I am concerned, the main solution. And as for the "values" debate - that is just a divide between people who believe this Earth is their God-given right to abuse as they please, and other, more sensible people.

That's not politics in the guise of science - it's plain common sense.

That cartoon...

2009-02-20T05:39:00.004-07:00

The New York Post recently published a cartoon by Sean Delonas, showing cops shooting a chimp, and one of the cops saying "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

This has provoked outrage among many people, including musician John Legend, the National Urban League president Marc Morial, Barbara Ciara (president of the National Association of Black Journalists), and the Rev. Al Sharpton. [All listed in the CNN story are African-American.] Their point - the chimp represents President Obama (Blacks are often racially taunted by a comparison with apes), and the cartoon encourages his assassination.

The Post subsequently apologized - sort of. To the people who were offended, but not to those who apparently are regularly opposed to the Post and were (according to the Post) just using the opportunity to beat the Post. The cartoonist has claimed he was just trying to say that the economic stimulus bill was written by monkeys (who, apparently, are not intelligent.)

The first thing I thought of when I saw the cartoon (admittedly, through a story describing the protests) is that the chimp represented President Obama. It's not just Blacks who are subject to the chimp comparison - so are aboriginals. Indian spectators have taunted Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds with a monkey chant (local police tried to explain it away as "praying to the monkey god, Hanuman" - but the picture defeats this lame defense.)

Then again, I do not live in the northeast, and I am not consumed by the mauling-chimp story.

Still, in this day and age, where the Internet has made most local papers global, particularly a prominent rag like the NY Post... using such localized news to comment on an issue of national importance is, at best, plain stupid. At worst...

On the other hand - does freedom of speech trump everything else? Yes - but that won't stop me encouraging a boycott of the NY Post unless it apologizes without caveat. That too, is freedom of expression.

The chutzpah of Republican Congressmen

2009-02-13T11:35:00.003-07:00

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate minority leader, on the economic stimulus package:

"This is not the smart approach... The taxpayers of today and tomorrow will be left to clean up the mess."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) described the ESP as "generational theft." [link]

I will try to find Harry Reid's response during the stimulus conference between the House and the Senate on Wednesday, to similar allegations made by Republicans at the conference - it was just beautiful, and I don't like Reid all that much.

In short, and using more colorful language than Reid: Where the f*** were you the last eight years?

All together now: IRAQ WAR + BUSH TAX CUTS = GENERATIONAL THEFT. So STFU, EVERYBODY (including Democrats), unless you have better ideas than just tax cuts (which failed to stimulate the economy last year; most people saved or paid off debt.)

[And I haven't even mentioned the $70 billion PORK pushed by REPUBLICAN Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in the form of the AMT patch - something the non-partisan CBO says will NOT stimulate the economy, and which has received the lowest grade of D- for stimulus effectiveness from the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institute. (via CJR)]

Remove the AMT patch from the stimulus package!

2009-02-11T08:17:00.006-07:00

This is a message I sent to Senator Bennet (D-CO); a similar message was sent to Senator Udall (D-CO) and Congressman Polis:

"I was a canvas captain in North Boulder for the Obama-Udall campaigns, and am glad we were able to win the election. I hope to work for your successful re-election in the future.

The compromise economic stimulus package includes a 1-year Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch. However, these short-term fixes to the AMT have been an annual feature for a while now. If the AMT patch was not included in the current, one-time, special stimulus package, the AMT patch would be passed by Congress later in the year anyway!
Including the AMT patch increases the cost of the stimulus package*, and has driven many worthy spending projects, particularly in education, out of the stimulus bill.
The AMT patch was forced in by Senator Grassley (R-IA), who isn't even voting for the stimulus bill!
I strongly urge you, Senator, to remove the AMT patch from the stimulus package, and avoid cuts in useful spending, particularly funding for NCLB, Head Start/Early Start, and Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service."

* Should have noted - by $69 billion!

Non-DC Republicans in support of the ESP

2009-02-09T06:47:00.005-07:00

The Republican mayor of Carmel, IN, James Brainard, supports the stimulus package:

As does Governor Jim Douglas (R-VT). I'd probably put Governor Douglas with Senators Snowe, Collins and Specter - GOP remnants in Blue states (IN barely went for Obama). But it also reflects a sensible approach - try something, to paraphrase FDR.

Unlike inside-the-beltway-idiots Michael Steele and John McCain, who either want their bill (all tax cuts, gut SS/Medicare, with a token nod to infrastructure spending), or none at all.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the AMT patch

2009-02-08T21:44:00.004-07:00

One Republican Senator has actually added $69 billion to the House bill - Chuck Grassley (R-IA) got an "avoid Alternative Minimum Tax" line into the ESP, and the Obama administration has agreed to this. But guess what - all these years, the AMT has been "patched" by Congress on an annual basis. [Wiki, CNN]

So why not just leave that AMT provision for another day, as has been done all through the Bush presidency? That automatically brings the cost of the current, one-time ESP down by $69 billion!

Various cuts have been proposed by a bipartisan Senate group led by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) to bring the "cost" of the ESP down by ~$100 billion. This includes $40 billion in aid to states for fiscal stabilization (which might help avoid laying off of state employees, possibly including teachers), $600 million for NCLB, $2 billion for "Health Information Technology", $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start, and $2 billion for broadband (Internet infrastructure - the roadways of the future). So if the AMT patch was not included in the cost of the stimulus package, these items could have been retained without increasing the cost beyond $800 billion.

And the worst thing is, Senator Grassley has not announced his support for the current bill either - Collins, Snowe and Specter are the only Republicans to back it. So - the Democrats should cut the AMT patch out of the ESP, and let these other worthies back in!

New Gingrich on the Obama approach to the ESP

2009-02-08T08:52:00.002-07:00

Just watched one-time Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich on George Stephanopoulos/This Week. Newt says the Obama administration could have either tried to be bipartisan and worked with the Republicans in making the ESP, or be partisan and say "we don't need the GOP" - but not the "zig-zagging" between the two.

First, I don't see where the Obama administration has zig-zagged its way between strategies. Second, a bipartisan bill was what the Obama administration wanted - but it was the fault of Republicans that this didn't work out. Republicans wanted the same old failed strategies of the past eight years - tax cuts and more tax cuts*. It takes two to tango; intransigent Republicans didn't want a bipartisan bill, they wanted a Republican bill passed by a Democratic President. The Obama administration had no choice but to face this reality, and accept it.

*Particularly, as Newt pointed out, cuts in Social Security and Medicare taxes, programs which the Republicans have wanted to gut forever.

Ron Paul on the ESP

2009-02-07T18:25:00.002-07:00

Ron Paul, the lone anti-war GOP Presidential hopeful (but weirdly, anti-abortion rights for a libertarian), apparently thinks the economic stimulus package is "pure spending." He is proud of the House Republicans for not voting for the ESP, and thinks Senators Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA) "caved in and went with the Democrats" by agreeing to vote for the ESP.

To be fair, Paul says Republican actions over the past eight years are also to blame for the current economic crisis, and Republicans can't blame Democrats for it.

However, the problem is that Ron Paul is not in government and is not responsible for the consequences of his proposed actions - let the stimulus be provided by "market forces, by individuals, by businesses making proper decisions" and not by the federal government (which, presumably, should only concern itself with preventing women from having control over their own bodies.)

Besides, in case Paul forgets, the current economic crisis was caused by "market forces, by individuals, by businesses making [im]proper decisions" - and there's no guarantee that these verisame idiots have seen the error of their ways. For instance, the $18 billion in bonuses to Wall St executives and junkets - (indirectly) paid for by tax payer bailout money.

Memo to Ron Paul: Either come up with a better, new idea, or STFU.

Pork in the ESP

2009-02-07T02:25:00.005-07:00

Senator John McCain and other Republicans keep charging that the stimulus bill is packed with "pork" - presumably spending on Congressmen's pet projects in their different states/districts. McCain et al. claim this is wasteful spending that increases the budget deficit (never mind that the same people supported the Bush tax cuts, which lead to the existing huge deficit in the first place).

Here's an idea - how about cutting out all portions of the bill that send such "pork" to the protesting legislator's district/state? "No funds for Arizona!"

McCain presented an alternative plan that was composed mainly of tax cuts (defeated by the Senate), and Mitt Romney apparently claims that the ESP stimulates the government, not the economy (which, presumably, needs only tax cuts, and more tax cuts). Memo to McCain (and Romney) - you LOST. You put forth such plans and "pork" was the signature issue of your campaign, compared to the "not big or small government, but better goverment!" rhetoric of Obama. And guess which path the American people chose? That's right, NOT YOURS. So stuff it!

Republicans adding CRAP to the ESP

2009-02-05T20:07:00.008-07:00

Senate Republicans are delaying passage of the Obama administration's economic stimulus package. Senators Lindsey Graham and John "I don't know much about the economy" McCain, among others, claim the government is spending too much, and have proposed alternatives more heavy on tax breaks. Recent Republican proposals, perhaps sensing public support for the ESP, are proposing a somewhat populist "help for homeowners" provision. Centrist Senators like Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are trying to whittle down spending in the current ESP. (NYT story) I have written earlier about some silly expenses as well.

One Republican Senator has actually added $69 billion to the House bill - Charles Grassley (R-IA) got an "avoid Alternative Minimum Tax" line into the ESP, and the Obama administration has agreed to this. But guess what - all these years, the AMT has been "patched" by Congress on an annual basis. [Wiki]

So why not just leave that AMT provision for another day, as has been done all through the Bush presidency? That automatically brings the cost of the current, one-time ESP down by $69 billion!

UPDATE: Various cuts have been proposed by a bipartisan Senate group led by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) to bring the "cost" of the ESP down by ~$100 billion. This includes $40 billion in aid to states for fiscal stabilization (which might help avoid laying off of state employees, possibly including teachers), $600 million for NCLB, $2 billion for "Health Information Technology", $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start, and $2 billion for broadband (Internet infrastructure - the roadways of the future). So if the AMT patch was not included in the cost of the stimulus package, these items could have been retained without increasing the cost beyond $800 billion.

GO STEELERS!

2009-02-01T21:50:00.003-07:00

After this morning's semi-disappointment - Federer losing to Nadal in the Australian Open - the day ended well with the Steelers' sixth Superbowl victory, beating the Arizona Cardinals 27-23 in a thriller.

The game was good, almost erasing memories of SB XL. The Steeler defense held the vaunted Arizona offense in check for most of the first half, with James Harrison's 100-yd interception return for a touchdown the highlight. The Arizona O-line held off the Pittsburgh blitzers almost all day, except for crucial plays - a couple holding calls, a sack, and a forced fumble to end the game. Coach Grimm (ex-PIT) did a good job; ARI QB Kurt Warner also got rid of the ball quickly. Arizona wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald did a great job in their second-half comeback; he will be a star for years to come.

But - the star was Ben Roethlisberger, PIT QB. Even though he didn't shine like Warner, Big Ben came good when it counted - scrambling to avoid ARI defenders (the PIT O-line collapsed often, as expected) and making amazing throws. Hines Ward made some good catches at the beginning (he was obviously still hurting from his injury in the AFC game two weeks back). But slowly Santonio Holmes took over, and on the final drive, won MVP honors. The best play of the game - over the Harrison INT-TD - was Big Ben's pin-point throw to Holmes over three Arizona defenders, a replica of the previous incomplete play, except at the opposite corner of the endzone.

At the end, it was good to hear Mr Rooney (a strong Obama supporter) thank President Obama and Steeler fans for their support - something to cheer da 'burgh in these desperate economic times.

The Pittsburgh Steelers. The greatest franchise in football history, and we couldn't have better owners than the Rooneys. Here's to more rings under 37-year-old Coach Mike Tomlin, a great pick by the Rooneys.

Blast those ESPN commentators!

2009-02-01T13:21:00.002-07:00

Got up in the middle of last night, and got to watch the final three sets of the Australian Open between Federer and Nadal. Nadal won, of course - an amazing feat after his epic semi-final. I feel really sorry for Federer - he just doesn't seem to be able to beat Nadal these days.

But at the end, instead of showing the trophy ceremony, the ESPN commentators - I think Brad Gilbert, Darren something, and another guy - just kept talking and analyzing the match. One of them even said "the ceremony is going on..." Why the heck would you not show it? Frustrated, I switched off the TV.

Turns out, Federer broke down during the ceremony - he probably couldn't figure out how he lost (the fifth set was a complete disaster.) A great champion showing his very human side - and I didn't see it because of the idiot commentators on ESPN.

I hate ESPN.

The new RNC chair

2009-01-31T02:38:00.002-07:00

Michael Steele, one of the few African-American Republicans elected to public office, was today elected as the RNC Chairman. He's from Maryland - a Blue state - and was apparently seen as a moderate. But here's what he had to say to CNN earlier this month:

“I'm proud to say I'm a conservative, have been, always will be... So this notion that I’m a moderate is slightly overblown, and quite frankly a lie.”

So… being a moderate, like most of America (national exit polls for the 2008 POTUS election suggest 44% are moderate, 34% conservative and 22% liberal), is a slur to a Republican? No wonder the GOP is a regional party. Looks like Steele will continue that Grand Old Procession to Southern-party status.

The economic stimulus package

2009-01-28T20:16:00.004-07:00

The ESP presented today apparently had some interesting inclusions:

1. The infamous $200 million for family planning, which has been taken out.

2. $650 million for digital TV converter-box coupons!!

3. $400 million for NASA climate change research.

[Washington Times link - yes, I know, WT, but still...]

#2 - are you freakin' kidding me? On second thoughts, folks probably don't want to spend money on these boxes right now, with the economy in the toilet. So what do they do - not watch TV? The House today defeated a motion (actually, it didn't get the 2/3-rds majority required) delaying the transition to digital TV - Republicans opposed the delay. Either Democrats strip the $650 million earmark and Republicans help pass the delay-bill; or the opposite happens. Republicans can't oppose both; Democrats can't have both.

#3 - this could be a conflict of interest, but I suppose it could put some scientists back to work, and keep others (maybe including me?!) employed. Still, I can understand Republicans not voting for the bill, alleging that Democrats are simply trying to advance a partisan agenda (though it is rather unfortunate that Republicans and idiots like Michael Crichton have politicized climate change research.) Some of these inclusions need to be stripped from the bill.

Overall, though, the ESP has good spending - infrastructure, energy, digitizing hospital health records; hopefully this money will be spent soon. As just reported on CNN/AC360, the non-partisan CBO says 64% of the spending will be over the next eighteen months. Timothy Noah writes in Slate.com that FDR's plan in the 1930s put 4 million people back to work in just two months - that's what Obama's plan has to live up to.

Update: On #1, Katha Pollitt writes in The Nation that birth control is health care, and if other health care provisions remain in the ESP, so should money allotted to Medicaid-provided contraception. I might agree with that.

But she also goes on to quote a report in the NYT that according to the CBO, spending $550 million over ten years would save $200 million over five years. She also states that birth control is an economic activity, and so should be helped (looking at what is being helped - wooden arrows from Oregon!? - this might even be a valid point!) Two things. Spend $550 million over ten years to save $200 million over five? The Government saves more by not spending the $550 million in the first place! Second, do birth rates go down (the point of contraception) in a Depression because the Government provides addition contraceptive aids? As Pollitt herself writes, the answer is - because "People. Have. No. Money." Then why should the Government provide extra funds for what will happen naturally? Finally, wouldn't people having kids actually lead to greater economic activity than birth control? So the government should really be subsidizing maternal and child care!

Bill Kristol's last op-ed in the NYT (?)

2009-01-25T23:13:00.005-07:00

Apparently, this is Bill Kristol's last column in the NYT. Maybe since the President is not a Republican, the Gray Lady doesn't need a token Conservative any more?

Kristol expounds on his usual "Conservatism is better and more successful than Liberalism" trope. Apparently, we are now at the end of an era of Conservatism, sayeth Kristol, but whether Liberalism will succeed depends on how President Obama performs. Like Reagan to the "new" Conservatism in the '80s...

Two things. I prefer the Libertarian, old Barry Goldwater-style Conservatism that said "you don't have to be straight to be in the Army, you just have to shoot straight!" The one that said keep your Church out of my State. The one that said keep the Government out of the private lives of the citizenry. Not the "Government will decide whether Terry Schiavo lives or dies, whether two consenting adults can have sex, whether two loving adults can be married, whether a woman/girl can have an abortion, whether evolution is a fact"-type Christian Conservatism of Reagan/Bush/Gingrich/Bush and (apparently) Kristol.

Second, Kristol says "Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world." Well, the last eight years have seen that stubbornly sticking to tax cuts even in the face of two expensive wars doesn't do anybody any good. The recent Wall Street crash - aided by Phil "nation of whiners" Gramm and DLC-er President Clinton, among others - has shown that The Market, unfettered, leads to excess and disaster. And does Kristol really believe l'affaire Terry Schiavo, teaching "intelligent" design in science class, and denying aid to agencies in overpopulated, poor countries which don't have a puritanical streak just because they disseminate information about abortion or provide such services, is Good Government? And I haven't even touched upon the Iraq War, pushed through by Chicken-Hawk Conservatives Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

Goodbye, Kristol. You will not be missed. [Actually, sometimes that can also be said for the rest of the Iraq War-cheerleading, Vicki Iseman-touting NYT. Oh well.]

Hillary Clinton's replacement in the US Senate

2009-01-25T15:32:00.006-07:00

Governor David Paterson (D-NY) this week appointed Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand ("D"-NY) as the replacement for ex-Senator Clinton. Gillibrand is a Blue Dog Dem - she opposed the bank bailout last year and was actually endorsed by the NRA over her Republican opponent. But she's also apparently pro-choice, and supports stem-cell research. On LGBT issues, she was initially only in favor of civil unions and voted against allowing same-sex partners of US citizens/permanent residents the same immigration status as married heterosexual couples, but now apparently supports same-sex marriage. [Wiki]

Fortunately or unfortunately, this left Caroline Kennedy out in the cold. Though she withdrew earlier in the week citing personal reasons, I think it is likely she figured out the writing on the wall and decided to exit as gracefully as she could. If Paterson wanted Kennedy, he could have announced her appointment weeks ago.

A point Maureen Dowd makes in her NYT column struck me - Gillibrand's appointment means President Obama's economic stimulus package faces a tougher road in the Senate. In the House, the package can pass without significant Republican support if required. However, the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate, and in any case, with Democratic Senators like Gillibrand and wackjob "independent Democrat" Lieberman, the Democrats may not vote 100% for the economic stimulus plan.

I wonder if Governor Paterson, in appointing a woman from upstate NY to help himself get elected, has cost President Obama his [Obama's] first big achievement. Probably not (1), but Paterson hasn't helped Obama, that's for sure.

(1) Some might point to President Obama's executive order closing Gitmo within a year, but (a) Gitmo is still open; and (b) as MSNBC's FirstRead and the NYT (via FR) (among others) point out, will certain "special interrogation techniques" be retained and even written into the Army field manual, even as the President pledges not to torture?

Billy Joel

2009-01-24T11:31:00.002-07:00

I do like Billy Joel.

Maybe you will laugh at my naivete; how can anyone like Joel's "contemptible crap"? That is the view of Ron Rosenbaum, who calls Billy Joel the "worst pop singer ever." Apparently, people "can't stand [Billy Joel] because of your music; because of your stupid, smug attitude; because of the way you ripped off your betters to produce music that rarely reaches the level even of mediocrity."

Boo, Rosenbaum! You may not like Billy Joel, preferring Bob Dylan or someone else apparently so-superior to Billy Joel. Good for you. But I don't put you down for your musical tastes, do I? Just because you are from Long Island, a la Billy Joel, doesn't give you the right to criticize Billy like a schoolyard Bully. If you think Long Island gets a bad rap because of Billy Joel, well, maybe it should produce a Dylan. Maybe you'd care to try?

[Must admire Rosenbaum's chutzpah - in the article, he accuses Jeff Jarvis of attempting a "snotty put-down" of another writer.]

I like Billy Joel. I grew up with his music, which might explain why I like it (and why I have very little of Dylan). Rosenbaum seems to have grown up with Dylan and early Springsteen; little wonder he can't name any other songsters for a comparison to Billy Joel.

Hail to the Chief! [President Barack Hussein Obama!]

2009-01-20T10:57:00.006-07:00

Just watched the Inauguration. I am really glad President Obama used his full name, even though the usher announced him as Barack H. Obama.

Chief Justice Roberts sped through the first few words of the Oath, which caused Obama to stumble for a bit. A little levity lightens the occasion!

Obama's speech was sombre, listing the challenges we face, but he also made it clear that America was ready to lead - foreign leaders and entities opposed to freedom and democracy beware! It wasn't a great speech - not quite his race speech or the DNC-2004 keynote or his speech after the NH primary - but the occasion was momentous in itself, and Obama didn't need to add to it.

The Inaugural poem by Elizabeth Alexander left me a little underwhelmed... The closing prayer by founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Rev. Joseph Lowry, was quite good toward the end - "We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right." I wish I could find C-Span's HD transmission - watched the Inauguration on CBS-HD, but the voice-over commentary by Katie Couric et al. was annoying (less so than CNN, I must note.)

A historic day, a new beginning.

Calling BS on Obama #1

2008-12-18T12:15:00.006-07:00

[#1, because I am sure there will be many opportunities over the next four years.]

Obama has chosen Rick Warren, mega-church pastor, evangelist, and CA-Prop 8 supporter to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Which is fine by me. But here's Obama defending his position on GLBT rights:

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

But equality apparently does not extend to same-sex marriage:

Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."

And that's where I call BS. Either allow same-sex marriage, or make the government recognize only civil unions for everybody, gay or straight, and let individual faiths/churches/whatever decide what "marriage" is.

Update: Actually, I now do have a problem with Rick Warren. According to Kathryn Kolbert of People for the American Way:

But it's not just his support for Prop. 8 that is so galling to equality activists.
It's that Warren, in an interview with Beliefnet.com, has since equated allowing loving same-sex couples to get married with redefining marriage to permit incest and pedophilia.

That is just plain Santorum-level stupidity and bigotry.

Sonal Shah in the Obama team: right-wing Hindu sympathizer?

2008-12-11T01:55:00.007-07:00

Sonal Shah is part of the Obama transition team, on leave from Google.org, and a former Clinton Treasury official. She is a member of the Technology, Innovation and Government Reform panel.
Today I saw an article on Rediff.com that Shah "formally severs links with the VHP." Googling around a little, Shah has been accused of being a sympathizer of the Hindu nationalist Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) by Professor Vijay Prashad of Trinity College, Hartford, CT in an article on Counterpunch.

A second National Journal on this topic prompted a fresh statement from Ms Shah, in full here. A second NJ article is here (where I picked up some of these links). Shah's statement included this nugget:

In 2002, Gujarat suffered one of the most profound tragedies in its long history, when extremist political leaders, including some associated with the VHP, incited riots that resulted in the deaths of thousands. Had I been able to foresee the role of the VHP in India in these heinous events, or anticipate that the VHP of America could possibly stand by silently in the face of its Indian counterpart’s complicity in the events of Gujarat in 2002 — thereby undermining the American group’s cultural and humanitarian efforts with which I was involved — I would not have associated with the VHP of America.

Emphasis added. Any Indian involved with politics (even stateside) should have been aware of the 1992-93 Hindu-Muslim riots following the demolition of a Muslim Masjid by a Hindu mob led by BJP leaders, and the extremism the BJP and its allies, including the VHP, are guilty of, IMO. The 1992-93 events and the surrounding "Hindu nationalism" campaign kick-started the BJP's rise to power. So this is a really weak denial, if you ask me.

An e-mail she sent her supporters apparently includes:

"I need your help," wrote Shah. "This is gaining legs as the National Journal also picked it up and likely Fox. I need to moblize [sic] people against the leftists and the right wing. There is a likely chance that they will ask me to resign as team does not need my publicity."

(National Journal story; emphasis added.)
I haven't seen any such mentions on dkos in the past month. This is not a specific targeting of Indian-leftists (even in the US), but a generic statement similar to the VHP-A's assertion (quoted below).
UPDATE: So my search criteria was a day or two less than required - I found three diaries on Nov 8/10, two questioning Shah's ties to the VHP (link1, link2), both of which received 1 "rec" and 250 comments in total - mostly saying the diarists were wrong. The third diary praised the first two diarists for raising the question and initiating a spirited discussion. Still, two diaries does not the American left make; an American such as Sonal Shah should know that "leftists and the right-wing" in the US means liberals as found on dkos, and Republicans, respectively.

For people who don't know, the VHP is part of the Hindu nationalists in India, which includes the more mainstream Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the parent Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The trail ends (starts?) with Professor Prashad's article in Counterpunch, which goes into some historical detail about Gujarat, the site of Hindu-Muslim riots in 2002 (allegedly aided by the BJP state government). Prashad also details Ms Shah's apparently strong family links to the VHP/BJP/etc. (her father came stateside when she was very young). He describes a personal encounter in 2004:

In 2004... I questioned her links to the Hindu Right, and so asked people to be wary about her organization, Indicorps. She was furious, and we had a bitter exchange in the Green Room. But at no point did she deny her active connections to the Hindu Right... “Of course we are free to have our multiple associations, and there is no expectation that all our affiliations necessarily influence each other. That necessity is granted, although it is my understanding that the VHPA is a very disciplined organization that demands a lot from its members – notably congruence in all the work that they do. Which is why I raised the question.”

Guess who next raised the question? None other than Rick "gay marriage leads to bestiality" Santorum (talk about bipartisanship, and a Republican accusing someone of right-wing ties!) From the first National Journal article:

Santorum's Thursday op-ed piece for the Philadelphia Inquirer repeated the charge made by several others:...
"Shah should condemn the VHP and its actions soon," Santorum wrote. "If she doesn't, keeping her on -- or, more ominously, giving her a post in the new administration -- would send the message that the president-elect does not think the VHP is a radical organization."

Santorum's certainly not someone I want to associate with.

An "open letter" to Shah by members of the Indian-American community says:

...at no time during this terrible period [Gujarat 2002 riots] are we aware of any statement from you dissociating yourself from these dreadful acts of VHP and RSS, especially given your proximity to these organizations:

And according to a Q&A with the general secretary of the VHP-America,

Q. She gave a statement where she says she does not identify with the ideology of the VHP. Does that hurt you?
No, everybody does not have to stand up for everything. You have to see the forces running against you. There is something called wisdom. It is very clear what is going on. Known characters from the Left. Leftist, Communist, Marxist well-known Hindu baiters, Hindu haters are coming out of the woodwork. So you do not have to fall in their trap. No matter what you tell them they are going to sing the same song so I think what Sonal has done is correct.

[Rick Santorum's a Marxist?!]

Full disclosure: I *hate* the BJP and its cohorts. Anyway, my point here is not to say one way or the other whether Sonal Shah is deeply tied to right-wing, Hindu nationalist nutjobs. I don't know. I repeat: I DON'T KNOW. But Shah has accused "leftists" of spreading lies and rumors, just like the VHP (even though Shah's part of the American left, i.e. Democrats!), and her denial is very weak; so I have to ask the question.

Indian reactions to the Mumbai terrorist attacks

2008-12-06T12:30:00.005-07:00

A couple of articles on Rediff caught my eye this morning:

1. Muslim leaders are coming out against the terror attacks, saying (a) they are Indians first and don't want outside help to avenge the Babri Masjid demolition and other communal attacks against Indian Muslims; (b) terrorism blemishes the concept of Jihad; and (c) "terrorists and communalists are cousins."

Great.

2. The Bombay Metropolitan Magistrate Court's Bar Association passed a resolution saying none of the over 1000 members would defend the lone terrorist captured live, Kasab. Some say since he has been captured red-handed, and given the crime, nobody would defend Kasab.

That is just stupid. Do they not understand the concept of "everyone is allowed to mount a defence, and given a lawyer to help mount said defence"? That is one of the basic underpinnings of a free society; what differentiates us from them. I can't think of a credible defence for Kasab; but I also know that someone's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, no matter how twisted and tortured (pun unintended) that logic. [That's probably why I will never be elected to public office, if I ever did run.]

3. An online petition is being circulated that urges certain "minimum actions" that the Government of India must apparently take. I urge folks NOT to sign this petition; I did not, and here's my response to the various "action points" detailed therein:

1 - "Destroy internal terror network" - this is easily taken to put away all sorts of people, particularly minorities. I hear the most prisoners under POTA were captured in... Jharkand! Alleged Naxalites. [Naxalites are like anarchists, calling for violent overthrow of the government. Far-left extremists.]
2 - "All training camps outside should be destroyed" - this is a declaration of war against Pakistan. The US can afford to do this with targeted missile strikes, though not even that these days given the Iraq/Afghanistan situation, but not India. Any such missile strikes inside Pakistan will be a declaration to war, which will only help Al-Qaeda and LeT.

If War with Pakistan and state terrorism of minorities is the "minimum action required" - thanks, but no thanks.

Absolut fun!

2008-12-03T23:20:00.001-07:00

Renaming cities and countries, and Hitchens

2008-12-02T21:43:00.005-07:00

I was reading Christopher Hitchens' latest article in Slate, where he says the US must come out more openly in support of India and against Pakistan-based terrorists. That is a good read, though it might follow Hitchens' known tendencies against religion, particularly Islam.

In the article, Hitchens decries the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai, claiming that to be the work of Hindu chauvinists, and comparing it to the "fake name Myanmar" for Burma. The latter article - also by Hitchens - riles against the renaming of Ceylon to Sri Lanka, as the work of Buddhist/Sinhala nationalists and apparently against the wishes of the Tamils.

I agree with Hitchens partially - that the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai was the result of an incredibly restrictive sons-of-the-soil policy implemented by a right-wing party, the Shiv Sena. [A class-mate once said the Shiv Sena is not communalist, it is opportunist. True. At one point, it was anti-Communist/labor union; once anti-South Indian, now anti-North Indian. And in the past 15 years, anti-Muslim.]

However, Hitchens fails to mention that both Bombay and Ceylon are Anglicized versions of Portuguese names. The Portuguese were NOT the original residents; they were colonizers. So neither the residents of Bombay/Mumbai, nor, probably, the natives of Sri Lanka/Ceylon, have a vested interest in the name, other than being used to it for many generations. That's why I continue to refer to Bombay as such. But the name Lanka is Sanskrit in origin, apparently meaning "island." The Hindu epic Ramayana refers to Lanka, AFAIK. So is it against the wishes of the Tamils? I seriously doubt it - the Portuguese were not good rulers; colonizers never are.

[Of course, one could argue that Sanskrit and the Ramayana are impositions by Aryan invaders and thus Lanka is against the wishes of native Dravidians/Tamils... But what did the Tamils call it? Definitely not Ceylon (before the Portuguese).]

Anyway. The point of this post is to point out where Hitchens is seriously wrong - the renaming of Bombay and Ceylon may be the work of native "nationalists," but they at least were the work of natives (even if of a particular political/ethnic persuasion). But the deposed names themselves are the imposition of colonizers - Roman Catholic Europeans of Mediterranean stock - and so are NOT native to the land.

Disclaimer: I am a native of Bombay, though from South India a couple generations back. So to the Shiv Sena, I'd be a foreigner... I am also Tamil. But I am really a Bombayite - that where I was born, brought up, and what I call home.

India's 9/11

2008-11-28T21:56:00.008-07:00

Some friends have asked me about the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai/Bombay. I shot off this e-mail to a friend, which captures my feelings about this:

This is something very new to Bombay - gunfire and bombs happen all the time in Kashmir, but not in Bombay, and there is definitely no attack of such public places. Those terrorists have (had?) a death wish - there is no other explanation. There was no chance of escape, given just 30-40 terrorists in a city of millions. So they are trying to become martyrs, taking as many innocent lives as they can.

My first reaction was - this is India's 9-11 moment. [Apparently, I am not alone.]

[A little while after 9-11, some terrorists drove into the Parliament complex shooting at random. The press in India started calling that 12-13 (Dec 13, the day of the attack), iirc. But that was nothing - comparatively.]

People in India are pretty riled up, and quite likely a similar reaction as Americans had to 9-11. Kill the terrorists (some idiot politician or cop has already used the dead-or-alive theme), use strong anti-terror laws (previous PATRIOT-like laws TADA and POTA were allowed to lapse with a refusal to invoke such laws as late as last week), etc. It's easy enough to blame Islamic extremists for this tragedy, and very likely they are. Things are just going to get a lot worse now...

Why now - recently, some right-wing Hindu extremists bombed a Muslim-majority locality. (This apparently followed many other incidents perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.) Anyway, this is similar to (connecting to my memory-map) what happened in 1992-93:

Dec 6, 1992: Hindu right-wing mob destroys the Babri Masjid.

Jan '93 - Hindu-Muslim riots break-out, especially severe in Mumbai. [The area around my college is among the ones put under curfew.] Many casualties among Muslims, with allegations (probably true) of Hindu-police complicity (at the very least, inaction by the police as Muslims were killed).

March '93: Serial bomb-blasts at 7? sites across Bombay, within minutes of each other. Over 300 killed iirc.

So there's a pattern...

Update 11/29: Here's a timeline of the events, and an interesting take from Robert Baer of Time.

Update 12/2: Amitav Ghosh opines in the NYT that this is not exactly India's 9-11. Ghosh makes a good point that America was not used to terrorist attacks on American soil unlike India, which has a much longer experience with terrorism (though he offers an example of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots - but America is used to communal/racist riots). He also says 9-11 refers not just to the attack itself, but the "utterly misconceived military and judicial response" that followed. I must disagree with Ghosh to some extent here - I think the US invasion of the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was right, even as the excesses at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were wrong.

I look at last week's events as India's 9-11, as the day the Indian government and the world community (read the US and Pakistan) realize these terrorist activities cannot continue, and action is taken by all concerned governments and peoples to hound the terrorists out of business.

Did Britain just sell Tibet?

2008-11-26T15:26:00.002-07:00

...asks Robert Barnett in an NYT op-ed. Apparently, Britain is dropping its support for Tibet as an autonomous region in return for financial help from China to help the UK tide over the current global financial crisis:

an announcement on Oct. 29 by David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, that after almost a century of recognizing Tibet as an autonomous entity, Britain had changed its mind. Mr. Miliband said that Britain had decided to recognize Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China. He even apologized that Britain had not done so earlier.

And this matters to India as well, says Barnett:

the decision has wider implications. India’s claim to a part of its northeast territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements — notes exchanged during the Simla convention of 1914, which set the boundary between India and Tibet — that the British appear to have just discarded. That may seem minor to London, but it was over those same documents that a major war between India and China was fought in 1962, as well as a smaller conflict in 1987.

This is NOT helping the Tibetans (d-uh!):

On Nov. 10, China issued a damning attack on the exile leader, saying his autonomy plan amounted to ethnic cleansing, disguised independence and the reintroduction of serfdom and theocracy. The only thing that China will henceforth discuss with the exiles is the Dalai Lama’s personal status, meaning roughly which luxury residence he can retire to in Beijing.

The last word from Barnett:

Including China in global decision-making is welcome, but Western powers should not rewrite history to get support in the financial crisis. It may be more than banks and failed mortgages that are sold off cheap in the rush to shore up ailing economies.

Free Tibet! Let's at least have an autonomous Tibet. Oh wait, we are broke and China has money... The Chinese commies are great, it's the Dalai Lama who is engaged in ethnic cleansing!

'Nuff said.

The change I need!

2008-11-10T19:55:00.004-07:00

Following up on my previous post, here are somethings I'd like to see in an Obama presidency, as a change from the Bush administration:

1. A real scientist in-charge of the EPA, or at least a professional with a science background. The person should also have a strong independent streak, so s/he can put science and the public health ahead of corporate/monetary interests.

[There was a trial balloon that RFK, Jr could be the EPA administrator - but he's an activist of dubious credentials, even if on the right side. And not a scientist.]

2. Do we really need another President who uses executive orders rather than wait for Congress to act (via FirstRead)? Here's a leader of Obama's transition team, John Podesta:

"There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for Congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that"

Yes, I know - Obama will be reversing some questionable decisions by the Bush administration. But it's the principle - and should we not hold President Obama to the same standard to which we hold/held President Bush?

3. This is not about governance per se, but worth mentioning. I just heard Howard Fineman on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" that Obama does not want to make a hero out of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) by kicking him out of the Democratic caucus or stripping him of his Homeland Security/Government Affairs Senate Committee chairmanship. I am not so sure - Lieberman campaigned actively against Obama, questioning his abilities while praising Governor Palin's qualifications. Lieberman also said that "whether Obama is a Marxist" is a good question, questioned Obama's patriotism, and was mute when Governor Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists." [The last as heard on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.] This is the person Obama, Reid and other Democrats want as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security/Government Affairs committee?

What to do next?

2008-11-09T09:51:00.003-07:00

So Obama has won, with increased Democratic majorities in Congress and the Senate. What's next? Are things going to be much better now that The One is President? Will everybody chant kumbayah and work together for the "right" things?

I don't think so. As Obama said in his victory speech: "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep."

Here is a great article by Tim Wise:

...we can savor the moment for a while, for a few days, perhaps a week. But well before inauguration day we will need to be back on the job, in the community, in the streets, where democracy is made, demanding equity and justice in places where it hasn't been seen in decades, if ever. Because for all the talk of hope and change, there is nothing--absolutely, positively nothing--about real change that is inevitable. And hope, absent real pressure and forward motion to actualize one's dreams, is sterile and even dangerous. Hope, absent commitment is the enemy of change, capable of translating to a giving away of one's agency, to a relinquishing of the need to do more than just show up every few years and push a button or pull a lever."

This encompasses what I have read occasionally elsewhere (mostly on dailykos!) - whether we revert to "rule by politician" and trust Obama to make the right decisions, or get more involved. After all, Obama is human like the rest of us, will make mistakes, will probably do something that we think is wrong - but it's up to us to call him on it, or support him, as we see fit.

How the India-Pakistan situation can be resolved

2008-11-07T08:46:00.000-07:00

Volatile India-Pakistan Standoff Enters 11,680th Day

A Boulder story

2008-11-05T09:27:00.002-07:00

Boulder is seen as a far-left part of the country, like San Fran (one of my favorite cities!) "Folks here don't vote for the Democrat, but go for Nader!"

The NYT has an excellent graphic giving county-wise results, not just for 2008, but all Presidential elections since 1992. The data bear out a strong preference for Nader/Perot in the '92, '96, and 2000 elections:

1992: Clinton 50.9% (64,567), Bush 26.5% (the rest Perot?)

1996: Clinton 52.2% (63,316), Dole 34.5% (the rest Perot?)

2000: Gore 50.1% (69,983), Bush 36.4% (the rest Nader?)

2004: Kerry 66.3% (105,564), Bush 32.4% (Nader out!)

2008: (29% reporting) Obama 75.2% (43,347), McCain 23.5% - ~100,000 votes to be counted

Obama currently leads Colorado by 138k votes - if the Boulder split holds up, add another 50k to that lead.

Yes. We. Did.

End of an election

2008-11-05T01:54:00.003-07:00

President(-elect) Barack Hussein Obama.

Wow.

Landslide, baby, landslide! Popular vote by 6.34 million, or ~5% according to CNN as of 0200 Mountain time, Nov 5. Electoral votes: Obama 349, McCain 159, as per Pollster.com's aggregate of the different networks:

- CBS/Fox/NBC/AP have called IN for Obama.

- NE's CD-2 EV is still outstanding as per Pollster.com. So are MO, NC, MT.

- At least CNN has called MT for McCain. So McCain's up to 162.

- The AP has not called GA for McCain (via an excellent diary at dkos) - apparently because approximately 600k early votes cast in metro Atlanta are still outstanding, which is almost twice McCain's 245k lead.

- Obama's ahead in NC by 12k votes out of 4.2 million cast. Looks like Obama has won NC! So Obama's up to 364 EVs.

Yes. We. Did.

p.s. 11/5 PM: I just remembered my post - made almost a full month back - that Obama's EV upper limit was... 364! This was similar to Larry Sabato's prediction, except he called MO, while I called... IN! In fact, Sabato's prediction was exactly like the final Pollster.com leads, including the pick of MO rather than IN - per the Pollster trendlines, McCain was ahead a hair in IN (R+1.2, actual D+0.9), while Obama was ahead in MO (D+1.2, actual R+0.2).

Did I just beat the Crystal Ball, with a tremendous assist from Pollster.com, but with the considered pick of IN instead of MO? Yay!

Florida polls

2008-11-03T23:36:00.004-07:00

Florida is essential to a McCain victory, and so two recent polls by PPP and SurveyUSA (via Pollster) make me slightly optimistic. Both show a small Obama lead, 50-48 (PPP) and 50-47 (SUSA). That could be just two polls matching due to the wrong reasons, but the internals seem quite similar.

Early voting:

PPP says 56% has already voted, and Obama wins them 56-43. McCain leads E-day voters 56-38.

SUSA says 58% have voted, and Obama wins them 58-40. McCain leads E-day voters 54-42.

Gender split:

PPP: Obama wins women 52-47; is tied among men at 49.

SUSA: Obama wins women 50-47; also wins men 49-47.

Ethnic splits (pollster, fraction of voters):

Whites: McCain 57-41 (PPP, 70%) or 53-43 (SUSA, 69%)

Hispanics: Obama 55-42 (PPP, 13%) or 53-44 (SUSA, 15%)

Blacks: Obama 93-6 (PPP, 13%) or 81-16 (SUSA, 12%) - the latter result seems weird, but the subgroup sample size is small.

Age-group composition and splits seem slightly different, but neither pollster uses the same age groups.

IMO, two independent polls showing roughly the same result is an indicator which means Obama has a good chance of winning FL. Fingers crossed... In the mean time, I will be doing my part at Getting Out The Vote in Colorado. We still gotta win this state!

Final GOTV push, Day 2

2008-11-03T03:05:00.008-07:00

Today was the second day of the final Get Out The Vote (GOTV) push. I am a canvass captain in North Boulder (Colorado) for the Obama/Udall/Polis campaigns, which just means I train new volunteers in addition to canvassing.

Though thus far the NB office hasn't looked busy, there has been a steady influx of volunteers, which means we knocked on over 1100 doors today. That's a decent figure, and hopefully more volunteers show up tomorrow and E-day (very likely), so we can really turn out Obama supporters here. Though Gallup's final release (via dkos) suggests Obama is up 53-42 among likely voters, a series of polls released by Democratic pollster PPP says the election is much closer where it matters - in the battleground states of OH, FL, NC; PA is becoming tighter, but so is MT. Obama apparently has a good lead in CO, but I will believe it when I see it.

Today, I had some experiences, which perhaps encompassed the highs, the lows, and the middle of canvassing. First, the good. Most folks who I talked to supported Obama - this is Boulder, but some say folks here are apt to support Nader more than Obama! Very possible... Pacifists don't like Obama's position on Afghanistan - the other day, my neighbor said, "why should we fight in a country half the world away that hasn't harmed us?" [I am no kumbaya-singing pacifist. Gotta finish Al-Qaeda, and that requires fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan.]

A neighbor to one of my stops was a little worried about OH and PA, but I told her things are OK in PA, and Obama has many more routes to 270 even if he loses OH. She said she'd stay up late tonight to finish her work, so she could come volunteer, which is a great attitude!

There was also this incredibly beautiful woman I ran across - I was canvassing her room-mates, who were out. Greek goddess, I thought, but I managed to spew out the required information coherently. I woulda asked her out, but a random canvasser asking a person out is so not creepy, right? :-)

The middle - a woman, about my age, asked me what I hoped to accomplish with the GOTV effort. She supported Obama, so that was no problem, it was just that I had asked her to volunteer. I talked to her for about 10 minutes, but I don't think I convinced her. Though the polls may show Obama up in CO, folks, remember - this was a red state for many years, and polls don't win states - only votes do.

[On CO as a red state - Amendment 48 tries to classify a fertilized egg as a person, and Kristi Burton, the sponsor, was selling it on local PBS today as "a commonsense basis for further negotiations." Apparently, CO is a testing ground for this anti-abortion legislation, though a poll suggests Amendment 48 might be defeated. Even Bob Schaffer, the Republican candidate for CO-Senate, is apparently against it, though Burton denied this. A guy on my canvass, when I asked who he voted for, mentioned Amendment 48 as the most important issue for him!]

Another young woman I met today said she was voting only for President this year. I wonder if that was because she didn't want to vote for Schaffer, but she didn't want to support one-Party rule (by voting for Democrat Mark Udall for Senate) either. Oh well.

[On my first canvass, I met an elderly woman who said she'd seen an NEA ad supporting Udall, and so was unsure because she didn't like the NEA - even though Udall has been the Boulder Congressman for almost a decade. But she supports Obama... So there are other reasons to oppose Udall as well, I suppose.]

Finally, the bad. On my fifth or sixth day of canvassing (it's all a blur!), I came across a drunk (at 2 PM) nutjob. In an apartment building, nobody else around, though he was small-built, so I could probably take him. First, he goes: "You are with ACORN, aren't you?" Ummm... No. That starts off a tirade - "F***ing socialists, tax the people who create jobs..." etc. I had just inserted Obama and Udall leaflets under the door of an apartment, so he goes around me, takes it out, and storms out of the building, tearing up the leaflets. (I replaced the leaflets later, this time pushing it well inside the door.) This was followed by the guy ranting outside the building, using more four-letter-words and flipping the bird at me.

Later I walked into the next building, and after a few stops, the guy came up behind me again. Walked the corridor, and tried to pry another leaflet from under a door (but now I had learned, and he couldn't get it out). Walked off, again muttering and swearing. As I said before, I could have probably taken him if it came to that, but he left me shaking, nonetheless. Probably a Sarah Palin fan. The worst part of it was that the experience erased the picture of the Greek goddess from my mind... I just remember she had lovely blue eyes and long, wavy, jet black hair :-)

Time to get some sleep now, two more days to go... Remember, folks: polls don't win elections, only votes do. And you knock on enough doors, you run into all sorts of people, the good, the bad, and the ugly. So canvass during day time, and/or if you prefer, walk in pairs. But it's overall a good, positive experience at least in Boulder. And it's for a great cause!

By the way, I should give a shout-out to the "higher-ups" in our team - they work longer hours, have been at this longer, and deserve full credit for keeping us enthusiastic. And of course, the comfort captains and volunteers who are bringing in good food :-)

(Also cross-posted at dkos)

The Obama infomercial

2008-10-29T18:39:00.007-06:00

Just watched the Obama infomercial on MSNBC (the local CBS and NBC affiliates are showing it at 7.00 PM MT - delayed an hour.)

I thought Obama said he would mention specific spending cuts to pay "over and above" his spending plans, but I didn't hear said cuts. Will have to listen to it again. Update: the only specific cut appears to be ending the War in Iraq. While I'd have liked to see more, I understand some people might find specific domestic cuts unpalatable. Anyway, I am not such a deficit hawk - I think both candidates will be deficit-spending. I would rather the money be spent regenerating the American economy (particularly through non-conventional energy sources), than on wars against Iraq, Iran and Russia.

I initially thought the ad would use stories from only battleground states when it started with Missouri and New Mexico, but Kentucky also made an appearance. [So did Ohio, as I watch a delayed broadcast on the local Fox station, post-World Series.] I also liked the appearances by Governors Strickland, Sibelius, Kaine, Deval Patrick and Richardson, and Senators Durbin, McCaskill, and Biden. I was pleasantly surprised at the (personal!) endorsement by Google CEO Eric Schmidt. I do wish a Republican - like Senator Hagel or even General Powell - had made an appearance. If Hagel does not want to endorse McCain, and he's not running for re-election, what's keeping him from coming out for Obama?

Obama on his mother's fight against the big-C and the insurance companies was incredibly touching. Michelle speaking about Obama doing a good job as father was excellent as well.

Overall, the infomercial was well-produced, and I was glad to see lots of diversity. But more importantly, with the quick turn - within the first few minutes - to regular American families (a Caucasian family trying to make ends meet, an elderly African-American couple with the husband taking a new job at Wal-Mart to pay for his wife's medical expenses, a retired Caucasian whose pension was dramatically reduced due to corporate fiscal mismanagement, a Hispanic single mother with two jobs), Obama demonstrated that this election is not about him.

It is about all of us.

Update: The video!

Coda: McCain says the ad was paid for with broken promises. In short: "Waaaah! Obama didn't let me gain a vast financial advantage via the RNC-DNC fundraising gap!"

Obama not admitting a mistake?

2008-10-26T08:14:00.004-06:00

"Obama has not admitted the Surge worked" - so says Senator Lindsey Graham on This Week.

But has McCain ever admitted that the Iraq War was a mistake? That the US was not greeted as a liberator, that it was not a short war, that the War was not paid for by Iraqi oil but instead by American budget deficits, all opposite to what McCain proclaimed before the Iraq War?

John McCain - continuing the Iraq War and continuing tax cuts for the wealthy - just like the first 7 years of George W Bush, but without the common sense on comprehensive immigration reform.

Working to get Obama elected (2)

2008-10-25T20:15:00.004-06:00

Four days of canvassing - about 200 doors knocked, ~50 persons talked to, and 4-5 volunteers recruited: 20-25 hours.

About 30 calls to voters, and about the same number to potential volunteers (2 recruited): 2 hours.

Having fun trying to get Obama elected: Priceless.

[Updated] Voter statistics in Boulder County

2008-10-25T19:04:00.005-06:00

Decided to look up the voter statistics in Boulder County today. Here's what I found at the CO Secretary of State, updated as of 10/23/08:

Total MIB requested - 120k out of 182k "active registered voters" (I have no idea what inactive RVs are!)
Total MIB received - 39k (Boulder County Clerk says 47k as of today, 10/25/08)
Early voters - ~6k (BCC says 9k as of today)

UPDATE: A more comprehensive, nationwide summary by Michael McDonald is here.

Random musings (updated)

2008-10-19T12:03:00.001-06:00

I caught this morning's This Week show only part-way. Talking about paying for their spending plans - McCain promises $5 trillion in new spending compared to just $3.5 trillion for Obama, IIRC - the talking heads only spoke about Obama. George Will, one of the WaPo conservatives, said, "Obama restricts his tax-cuts to the middle class, but is going to tax the richest 2% - there's not much left to tax the top 1% who already pay 38% of the taxes, where's he going to pay for his spending?"
None of the others asked - "How's McCain going to pay for his spending when he isn't raising taxes onanybody?" It's almost as if President Obama's a certainty...

I agree with whoever (Richard Lewis on The Daily Show?) who said "McCain's plan is socialism for the wealth, and a big F***-you to the rest of us." Or so it seems to me, anyway - see the $300 million to banks to buy failing mortgages at face value. Where's the free market you champion, Senator McCain?

Again, This Weak - ABC's ad for the show has a "dynamic" George Stephanopoulos hunting around for stories, and proudly shows George telling Senator McCain [about his charge that Obama's putting personal ambition over country?] - "I can't believe you believe that." Umm... ABC, that, if anything, shows George's naivete rather than his ability to speak "truth to power"...

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Nancy Pfotenhauer says McCain's leading in the "real" Virginia. Guess what? The state's electoral votes are determined by all of Virginia, real or false... and guess who's leading in that count?

Senator McCain apparently responded to General Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama with "This doesn't come as a surprise." What exactly do you mean by that, Senator? That Colin Powell, who used to be a widely-revered General before being used as cover for the Bush-Cheney War agenda, disagrees with you on the way forward in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or that Powell was endorsing Obama based on his race? If the latter, well, that seems to put you in the company of Rush Limbaugh, who seems to have the same reaction. Enough said.

Palin on SNL

2008-10-18T23:35:00.006-06:00

Just watched Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) on SNL. She was actually quite funny - well, at least the skits were, and she appeared a good sport. If this swings the election back to McCain, Tina Fey and SNL would have finally avenged Hillary... Yes, I still hold SNL's Democratic primary spoofs on Senator Obama featuring a Fred Armisen in blackface against them. And why I say this could swing a few votes to McCain-Palin is because Palin came off as likeable and a good sport, which suggests some intelligence. Now it's true that polls show one can like Palin but still not support her, but we are talking about the swing voters who still can't see the vast daylight between Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin on the issues of substance after all this time... Who knows what will swing them one way or another?

[That also raises another, troubling question - what was Governor Palin, the true patriot, doing in NYC, one of the anti-America regions of America?]

The "weekend update" section was followed by an ad break featuring the anti-Obama "empty chair" advertisement - "in this time of crisis, the nation is considering elevating someone with the least experience and no executive experience" to the Presidency. Well, as far as I can recall, Lincoln did a damn fine job with the Civil War.

The third debate

2008-10-15T23:48:00.003-06:00

The third and final Presidential debate ended earlier this evening, with pretty much the same results as the earlier two debates. Neither candidate scored a knock-out, and so McCain has not done much to change the state of the race - which doesn't bode well for the Republican.

The most enduring image of the debate for me was McCain's reaction to Obama's statement that Joe the Plumber would pay ZERO fines if Joe didn't buy health insurance for his (future?) employees. McCain gaped aghast - he clearly was not expecting that! Video via kos:

I am so happy to have that video... On a second watch, McCain's reaction is simply b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l.

It was also surprising to see the Democrat argue against wasteful spending of taxpayer money - like buying mortgages at face value, or higher health care costs due to ER visits by uninsured people.

Outside of that, though, I thought Obama could have socked McCain at least a couple of times. For instance, after Obama said "zero" fines for JtP, McCain just continued to spout his "will have to pay fines" line. Obama could have simply said, "didn't you hear me, John?" Or when McCain said toward the end "so if there aren't enough vouchers, lets not do it? I understand!" - Obama could have said "vouchers are your only solution to education; I have a much more comprehensive approach - including charter schools - because the youth are America's future." Or about ACORN (this might be a too-subtle point, but let's not underestimate voters) - "you could register Mickey Mouse or one guy 23 times, but Mickey Mouse is not going to vote, and a guy can vote only once!" [After all, McCain did say "democracy is endangered by ACORN!"]

In trying to avoid a gaffe/not lose, I think Obama let a great opportunity to KO McCain slip away. It's just like the primaries - Obama's running out the clock, content that he has a definite lead that he has to protect. Unlike the primaries, though, Obama has a lead in the polls - but nothing in the bag, yet.

Still, I remain cautiously optimistic...

On the conservative intelligentsia leaving McCain-Palin

2008-10-15T06:09:00.004-06:00

Of late, a number of conservative pundits appear to be fleeing McCain - George Will, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker... On this topic, I find this Ross Douthat piece very smart and well-written. Here's a key excerpt:

Suppose that you accept the most cynical account of, say, Peggy Noonan's uncertainty about whom to vote for in this election, or Christopher Buckley's Obama endorsement - that they're just craven, self-interested bandwagon jumpers who want to keep getting invited to all those swanky cocktail parties I keep hearing about. Suppose that you regard every right-of-center writer - or single-issue fellow traveler with the Bush Republicans, in the case of Christopher Hitchens - who's publicly hurled brickbats at the McCain campaign as a quisling and a coward, a stooge for liberalism and a rat fleeing a fast-sinking ship. In such circumstances, what's the best course of action - denouncing the rats, or trying to figure out why the hell the ship is sinking? Even if Brooks and Noonan and Buckley and Dreher and Kathleen Parker and David Frum and Heather Mac Donald and Bruce Bartlett and George Will and on and on - note the ideological diversity in the ranks of conservatives who aren't Helping The Team these days - are all just snobs and careerists who quit or cavil or cover their asses when the going gets tough and their "seat at the table" is threatened, an American conservative movement that consists entirely of those pundits with the rock-hard testicular fortitude required to never take sides against the family seems like a pretty small tent at this point.

Of course, not all conservative pundits are fleeing McCain. Michael Gerson - once Bush-43's speechwriter - says McCain may be "a great man running at the most difficult of times." And his reasoning for saying that? That Obama's naturally a laidback 1940s crooner, who has done nothing of note to alleviate the current fiscal crisis, unlike McCain, who suspended his campaign to work on the bailout bill. Oh, and that Obama is friends with terrorists, unlike McCain, about whose bad associations we would surely have known.

Really, Mr Gerson? I suppose you don't consider G Gordon Liddy a radical (he did it for Nixon! But what about shooting government officials?) And maybe Major General John Singlaub is an American Hero... but what about his links to Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads? (via a dkos diary) And I am sure the Alaska Independence Party is all-OK! (via midwest voices) And of course, the fact is that McCain didn't really suspend his campaign to work on the bailout plan - and he didn't do much to get the bailout plan passed either, rather he might have actually helped Republicans oppose the "rescue" plan!

Ahhh... what am I thinking? Gerson sees McCain, sees the Bush within, and reverts to his old fealty. D-uh!

Working to get Obama elected

2008-10-13T22:46:00.005-06:00

A couple weeks back, I walked into the downtown Boulder Obama office, and ended up making some calls. I meant to go back, but one thing after the other...

Then last week, an Obama canvasser came by my door (the second; but the first was just trying to get me registered). I think he had my name off my TNR subscription. Anyway, I told him what I told the first volunteer - I am a permanent resident, so I can't vote. So he said - "Do you want to volunteer?" I said, sure.

And surprise - a few days later, I got a call asking me if I was available to canvass that weekend (last Saturday). I figured I had put it off long enough, and showed up at house. Spent five hours walking the neighborhood (though it was a cold and drizzly afternoon) with another volunteer. My fellow canvasser later sent me a message about a 4-h training session for GOTV yesterday (Sunday), which was also quite interesting. And now I am going to a neighborhood-specific GOTV meeting and phonebank tomorrow.

The point is this - I walked in to the Obama office, and while that was useful, there was no follow-up to make me come back. The neighborhood team, on the other hand, has me attending more often, and I got a call earlier tonight thanking me for attending the GOTV training, and asking if I would show up Tuesday.

It appears past campaigns relied almost entirely on the "central campaign office" model, where volunteers would walk in, be given rudimentary tasks, and that was it. But the Obama campaign is blending top-down and bottom-up approaches to campaign organizing, that even the Right may learn from for the next time round. That Next Right piece is a reaction to this piece in HuffPo (which Patrick Ruffini of The Next Right describes as "one of the must-read pieces of this election cycle.")

Obama's middle-class economic rescue plan

2008-10-13T21:00:00.003-06:00

Obama's economic speech today, as prepared for delivery is here.

Lots of specifics, suggests a new economic rescue package - but for the middle class - to be passed by Congress ASAP (including the sending out checks for the "tax cuts for 95% of American workers and families" now). Sure, it involves a lot of government spending, but for the deficit hawks, I have one question: Where the f*** were you the past eight years?

Ideally, I'd rather not have a fiscal deficit. But if there's gonna be deficit spending, I'd rather the government spend that money on boosting the economy than on more wars with the Russians over freakin' Georgia and Ukraine, thank you very much.

Video here:

Some details of the costs. $60 billion for the steps proposed today, $175 billion for Obama's complete economic stimulus package. The previous $115 billion includes $50 billion for infrastructure projects, and the rest is the cost of a second round of tax rebates. Businesses hiring new full-time employees will get a $3000 tax credit, costing $40 billion. $10 billion to extend unemployment benefits; small business loans from the SBA's disaster funds $5 billion; and $4 billion for additional loan guarantees to the auto industry ($50 billion instead of $25 billion earlier, I think in the bailout package passed by Congress earlier).

The second debate

2008-10-07T22:13:00.006-06:00

The second Presidential debate between Obama and McCain was supposed to be a townhall-style meeting. But all it had in that vein was questions from voters, with some voters personally asking the questions and Tom Brokaw reading off some questions submitted via the Internet. There were no follow-up questions, with only one somewhat extended discussion between Obama and McCain. That was one shortcoming.

There were some good questions, and good answers - Obama mentioning the $400k AIG junket, Obama's "I'll take out bin Laden even if he's in Pakistan" statement, McCain saying "talk softly and carry a big stick." Though Obama hit McCain hard on that last point, mentioning "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", McCain's promise to annihilate North Korea, and "Next stop, Baghdad!"

Earlier in the campaign, Obama hit McCain for suspending his campaign to work on the bailout plan, saying a President should be able to work on more than one thing at a time. So perhaps in a turn of events, when Brokaw asked them to prioritize between health care, SS/Medicare and energy, McCain said "we can work on all 3!" while Obama said "first energy, second health care, and third, education" (but not entitlements!)

In response to a question about the effect of the bailout plan on ordinary working Americans, McCain gave his standard stump speech, while Obama explained how the plan would affect ordinary folk (as in small businesses may not make payroll due to a lack of credit), in addition to his spiel. There were one or two questions where neither answered, and instead gave their standard stump speech.

Overall, though, I thought there was no clear winner (though the CNN and CBS flash polls say Obama won by a bit). Obama came off looking very unruffled, looking intently at McCain when McCain was speaking - as the talking heads said, good body language, and most importantly, Obama looked Presidential. I thought McCain looked old, perhaps even wheezing a little. So all in all, Obama won.

Aside - the in-house audience was made up of undecided voters from the Nashville area. What...? Do Tennesseans really matter? :-) And KeithO and ChrisM kept talking about McCain's "that one" (referring to Obama) and "not you, Tom!" (on candidates for SecTreasury). That was stupid, and those comments barely registered on me. On this, I am with Mike Duhaime, the McCain guy, who said Mathews should focus on the substantive issues. Now, if only the McCain campaign itself would follow that advice...

[Update] EJ Dionne reminds me of a question that I thought McCain would hit out of the ballpark, but didn't: "As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?" McCain's campaign was centered around sacrifice (well, mostly military, apparently), but it was Obama who gave the much better answer. As Dionne writes:

McCain spoke almost entirely about cutting or freezing government programs. It was a strange answer from a man whose military career was characterized by years of punishing patriotic sacrifice.
Obama caught the idealism behind the query, criticizing President Bush's call for Americans to shop after the Sept. 11 attacks. He spoke of the need for individual energy conservation; called for expansion of service programs, including the Peace Corps; and described the hunger among young people to serve their country. McCain sounded like a legislator, Obama like a president.

Update 2: Jon Stewart, one of the most astute political observers, reminds me of Obama's reply to McCain's "let folks buy health insurance across state boundaries" - that the insurance companies would move to the state with most lax regulations to reduce their cost and increase profits, like the banking industry does in... Delaware! Ummm.... with the help of regulations written by your VP? Ouch!

Obama's upper limit?

2008-10-06T22:38:00.003-06:00

As of writing, things are looking very good for Obama - as per Pollster.com, Obama leads McCain 296-163 in the electoral vote count, including strong- and lean-Dem states, with Florida and Colorado moving in to the lean-Obama column. Further, Obama has slender leads in New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada - and North Carolina! In OH, VA and NC, use of the "sensitive" smoothing shows Obama leads from 4% to 7%, close to or beyond MOE (likely also the case for NH, but Pollster's map for NH has a bug). The only toss-up states where McCain is ahead are Missouri and Indiana (where Obama will likely spend his third debate prep-time). This should be Obama's upper limit - 296 strong/lean-Dem + 57 slight leads = 353 EV. Add in Indiana, and that makes 364 EV Obama's high water mark.

Of course, Obama winning all 364 electoral votes is highly unlikely, and I will settle for 270! In the mean time, here's the Pollster.com electoral vote map, which is now offered as an embed by the awesome Mark Blumenthal:

The VP debate

2008-10-03T05:52:00.005-06:00

The only VP debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin was... interesting. Joe Biden was remarkably restrained, on-message (attacking only John McCain), and didn't come off as either Papa Bush (against Ferraro) or Rick Lazio (against Clinton). The best Sarah Palin could do was be folksy and wink at/flirt with the audience, and try to be Reaganesque ("Say it ain't so, Joe... there you go again!") as she repeatedly avoided answering the questions. Unfortunately, Gwen Ifill didn't push her; maybe she was a little wary of appearing partisan after the recent right-wing attacks on her neutrality for writing her book on Black politicians.

On climate change, Sarah Palin said she's not convinced about anthropogenic (my word, not hers!) effects - but that we should do something about it (even if it's just, as Palin apparently believes, natural cyclical changes?) Palin also claimed that the USA should bring other countries along - but ummm... isn't the USA, under Bush, the only industrialized country to not sign the Kyoto Protocol? Joe Biden, quite appropriately, pointed out that without knowing the reason, we can't fix the problem. And he also said that pollution from China affects the western USA, showing a depth of knowledge (or at least, awareness, which is just as important).

On Israel, Sarah Palin said "I am so encouraged to know that we both love Israel." (h/t Milbank) Ummm... you are talking to Joe Biden, who's been doing this s*** ever since you were in the second grade. I am glad Joe didn't point out what a neophyte she is, who said recently that she was too busy governing Alaska to follow the war in Iraq (and if she can't do that, what about other foreign policy issues, like Israel?) That might have been taken as "sexism." Also, doesn't Sarah Palin's Church seek to convert, or at least encourages conversion of, Jews to Christianity? What sort of a friend to Israel is she?

Toward the end, Joe Biden had an awesome smackdown of "Maverick" McCain - "on the issues important to the American people, he's no maverick!" And best of all, Joe related his touching story of knowing what it felt like to wonder if his child would survive... It was genuine, heart-felt, and warm.

And all Palin said in response was... "mavericks! we are mavericks!" Yes, you definitely are - while the rest of America was sympathetic toward Joe, you just trod on... All the folksiness was revealed as an artifice, just cold calculation. Kos says "Anyone who knows what Biden has had to deal with raising his kids wouldn't have blithely made that comment." Someone who knows but doesn't give a s***, easily would have. And that a***hole was Sarah "hockey mom with a Down's child" Palin.

Barack Obama picked a great Vice-President. John McCain played craps with the country's future.

Obama's support among Hispanics slipping?

2008-09-30T16:48:00.004-06:00

This is based on Gallup "key indicators" weekly pooled data, the last of which ends Sept 21. Obama's lead among Hispanics - according to Gallup - was down to +15% from +40% a month earlier.

Support among non-Hispanic Whites (Obama-McCain):
Aug 18-24: 37-52
Aug 25-31: 40-50
Sept 1-7: 39-53
Sept 8-14: 37-55
Sept 15-21: 42-51 (M +9; best O-margin pre-last week)
Support among non-Hispanic Blacks:
Sept 8-14: 93-4
Sept 15-21: 93-3
Support among Hispanics:
Aug 18-24: 58-31
Aug 25-31: 64-24 (O +40)
Sept 1-7: 60-31 (O +29)
Sept 8-14: 55-35 (O +20)
Sept 15-21: 53-38 (O +15; pre-last week; lowest O-margin)

I wonder why that is - Obama losing ground among Hispanics even as he gains among non-Hispanic Whites.

Recently, Obama's campaign put out the "Limbaugh" ad [clarification] [where Limbaugh's apparently attacking Mexicans]. Politifact says the ad came out on Sept 18, and called it "pantalones en fuego" wrong (also includes the video). That ad also comes bang in the middle of that last week for which Gallup's pooled internals are available.

One way to read that ad is that Obama's support was slipping among Hispanics in their internal polling, and so they put out this misleading ad. Another way is that somehow, Hispanics saw the ad, and figured Obama was trying to scare them... Much as an Obama-bot I am, and as we know McCain in trying to win the nomination said he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill, yes, that ad was trying to scare Hispanics by linking Limbaugh and McCain, and I wish Obama hadn't put that out. Still, looking at the Gallup trends (O+40 to O+15 in one month), the first explanation seems more reasonable... We'll see over the next couple weeks if it worked, though the effect may well be lost in the economic crisis effect -Hispanics are as effected by it as anybody else.

Of course, I still haven't figured out why Obama's losing ground among Hispanics in the first place...

[UPDATE: Yes, the dkos/R2K poll shows Obama up 40 points among Latinos, and had been for a while. But (a) I am looking at Gallup which has a longer history; (b) Gallup's pooled weekly sample has about 7000 voters; say 15% Hispanics, makes that a Hispanic sample of ~1000 voters, with a MOE of 3%.]

As I was writing this, I looked up PPP's numbers for two states where Hispanics are influential - CO (O +7) and FL (O +3). Obama leads CO Hispanics 57-36 (PDF), but McCain and Obama are almost even among FL Hispanics (including Cubans) (PDF). Obama's gotta win them back...

I wrote this post at dkos first, here. I got a lot of flames, including accusations that I was concern-trolling... That if I didn't know the difference between Florida and NM Hispanics, I shouldn't comment... While all I was doing was point out that based on the Gallup data, which have a decent sub-sample size in the pooled weekly data, Obama seemed to be slipping - which might be confirmed by the release of the "pants on fire"-wrong "Limbaugh" ad (as the Obama camp's reaction to try and bring back Latinos). Guess I am not a complete Obama-bot after all - my support isn't blind.

The first debate

2008-09-27T21:45:00.004-06:00

The first debate between Senators Obama and McCain was reasonably good. McCain kept yammering away that Obama "does not understand" - but Obama showed that claim to be hollow through his thoughtful, considered responses to Jim Lehrer's questions as well as McCain's accusations. Throughout the debate, I kept yelling at Obama to state the obvious - that Osama bin Laden is still free because of Bush-McCain's singular focus on Iraq. Repeating this mantra throughout the debate would have done some good - unlike McCain's juvenile, disrespectful "Obama does not understand." Still, I am glad Obama pointed out bin Laden is free and Al-Qaeda is growing, as his closing argument - a strong finish.

If anything, this debate was a tie, which benefits Obama much more than McCain. McCain came off as a jerk, while Obama was cool personified.* More than that, Obama showed he's well-versed in foreign policy, and that an Obama Presidency would not be a risky proposition. Now all Obama has to do is point out - matter of factly - that a President McCain would be dangerous, driven by a "beautiful fatalism" that would lead to another Cold War, which is what McCain appears most comfortable with.

Today, more than ever, I feel confident that Obama will win this election.

* Alas, the original Mr Cool passed away this morning. Paul Newman, RIP. Your "Newman's Own Virgin Lemonade" is a staple.

On pointing out lies and mistruths

2008-09-15T00:55:00.004-06:00

Commenting on my previous post, Ciccina asks: "Is it okay to mention one side's distortions, but not the other?"

Definitely not, but as I have mentioned before, I am not a journalist, but a partisan blogger. Still, in the interests of (some) fairness, here's my take on the distortions/lies split between the two campaigns:

First, anecdotal: The front page of FactCheck as of writing lists a dozen recent articles. One debunks rumors spread about Governor Palin by chain e-mails (though a few have some truth to them); two point out issues with Obama ads. The remaining NINE point out distortions, smears and lies spread by John McCain, Sarah Palin, and their acolytes, mostly about Barack Obama.

Second, some quantification. Politifact has a truth-o-meter that tracks claims and statements made by each candidate. As of writing, they have looked at 113 for John McCain, and 114 for Barack Obama. I assume these are serious enough to be looked at by Politifact; some may be fluff, of course, but a lie is a lie, and a truth is a truth. Etc.

Anyway, I graded these judgments on a numerical scale:

True: +10 [25-39 McCain-Obama]

Mostly-true: +5 [20-24]

Half-true: 0 [19-21]

Barely-true: -5 [21-12]

False: -10 [22-18]

Pants-on-fire: -20 [the most egregious lies carry the heaviest penalty; 6-0]

Weighting and averaging the scores, Senator McCain gets a -0.84, while Senator Obama gets +2.37. So it seems that on average, Senator McCain's statements fall somewhere between "half-true" (0 points) and "barely-true" (-5), while Senator Obama's statements fall between "half-true" and "mostly-true" (+5). Reducing the "Pants-on-fire" weighting to -10 still leaves Senator McCain at sub-zero levels.

There you have it... Yes, all politicians stretch the truth or exaggerate; but of the two Presidential candidates currently running, one has been much more truthful than the other. And it is not the one claiming honor and integrity as his cornerstone. Surprise, surprise.

Women react to Sarah Palin: Part Deux

2008-09-12T20:27:00.006-06:00

I quoted a few anecdotal responses and a poll earlier. Recent polls suggest White women now prefer the Palin-McCain ticket over the Obama-Biden ticket...

Hopefully, as the media wakes up to the lie-machine that is the Palin-McCain ticket and calls them on the wrong facts, distortions, deceptions, exaggerations and outright lies / gutter smears, people, including sensible women, will come to their senses. After all, I am sure women - and men - don't want to support someone who made rape victims pay for their rape kits and forensic examinations, so tax-payers wouldn't be burdened...

In the mean time, here's a tremendous show of force by Women Against Sarah Palin:

"It's been one week since we sent out a letter to a few friends and family members asking them to respond to Sarah Palin's candidacy for Vice President. We had never done anything like this before. What motivated us? It's pretty simple: we were tired of feeling angry and helpless. We were thrilled to receive the first 100 letters in reply. Their eloquence and passion were inspiring, their rage and frustration palpable. Our disbelief began to mount as those 100 letters turned into 1,000 letters, which then turned into 10,000 letters. And as we sit here writing you now, we have reached nearly 100,000 letters."

Thankfully, not all women are vagina-Americans.

He's skinny but he's tough

2008-08-31T16:54:00.003-06:00

The major event of last week was Senator Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field. All through the Democratic primaries, his toughness was repeatedly questioned: would he stand up to the mud-slinging Republicans? Or is he just a Kumbayah-chanting Kerry (of the 2004 vintage)?

In recent weeks, the GOP was throwing everything at Obama - calling him a vacuous celebrity, not ready to lead, inexperienced, etc. And the Obama campaign was not exactly hitting back as it should, said many observers. His "new politics" would fail when faced with the old politics. Some of this could be seen in the early days of the Convention, when not many attacks were made on John McCain.

But on Thursday, all those questions were answered. Obama showed that he is skinny, but he's tough. He went after George Bush. Tied John McCain to W and questioned John McCain's judgment and temperament. Proclaimed his goals (an aim-for-the-moon "freedom from foreign oil in 10 years"), laid out his economic agenda (e.g. tax cuts for 95% of American working families, eliminate capital gains tax on small businesses) and emphasized (libertarian) personal and mutual responsibility. He also made clear areas where people could find common ground: Surely, people could agree on the need to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Surely, people could hunt, while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals? And surely, everybody could agree on hospital visits by loving partners of gay patients, even if they could not be married? [That last list is for those who say unity is hogwash.]

As either Tom Brokaw or Brian Williams (I forget who) pointed out at the end, the "bring it on, John McCain" attitude was taken straight from Andrew Shepherd's call-to-arms in The American President. The country has been going in the wrong direction for the last eight years, and some liberalism could well help set it straight again.

Each time Obama delivers a major speech, I am compelled to call it The Speech. Whether it was The Speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, The Speech on Race this March, or The Speech delivered earlier this week. Yes, Obama is not perfect, yes, he has faults. But the man is a genius, intelligent, and truly, as someone said, the question is not whether he deserves to be President, but whether we deserve him.

The Speech:

Sarah Palin: lying already

2008-08-31T16:25:00.003-06:00

When Governor Palin proudly proclaimed in her acceptance speech that she told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks" about funds for the Bridge to Nowhere, she was being less than truthful. Mudflats, a blog out of Alaska, quotes the Ketchikan Daily News (via dkos, I think):

“People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,’ said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth.

Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge’.
8-8-06

‘We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’ Palin said.”
Ketchikan Daily News 9-28-06

[Ketchikan is the sparsely-populated destination of the Bridge.]

A report from the Anchorage Daily News (via Mudflats) also has a Ketchikan campaigner for Palin's gubernatorial run, Mike Elerding, saying he would not vote for the McCain/Palin ticket "because of Palin's subsequent neglect of Ketchikan and and her flip-flop on the "Ralph Bartholomew Veterans Memorial Bridge.""

Sarah Palin: For the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.
[Lifted from the ADN report!]

More: Slate's Timothy Noah points out that Alaska gets back $1.84 for each $1 it pays into the Federal Treasury, ably aided by the great Guv'nor, and other hypocrisies.

Women react to Sarah Palin

2008-08-31T00:58:00.006-06:00

Anecdotal:
Alkibiades, a Clinton supporter who backed Obama once the primaries were over, says:
"Personally, I am laughing my ass off that he and Rove think this anti-choice, pro-creationist will sway our votes! I swear, everyday they insult my intelligence more."
[See comments to this.]

Newly-revived Kossack MyOwnClone, a self-described ex-PUMA says, "Don't you dare patronize me, John McCain!"

Also on dkos, Angry Mouse says, "No, Senator McCain, I am not an idiot!" Quote:
"You think I will forget every single one of my personal and political values just because there's a vagina on your pro-war, anti-woman, anti-science ticket. You, Senator McCain, are wrong."

[But as a true-PUMA would say, those posting on kos are not feminists. Just like those women and men who didn't support Senator Clinton. See, there are certain litmus tests to be accepted as such...]

A PUMA calls the Palin pick "F*cking wow." A commenter agrees and says the Democrats calling Palin inexperienced are sexist, as the Dems chose Obama.

Poll:
Sullivan digs into Rasmussen internals and finds that among undecided voters, 59% think Governor Palin is unready to be President; 8% say the pick made them more likely to vote McCain while it made 31% less likely; and 69% view Palin as conservative, with 37% as very conservative.
[On the other hand, what about the ratings among women? How many of them vote with their vaginas, or want to spite the sexist Democrats by voting in someone who'd return us to the good old pre-1973 days?]

My own take is here. Crucial point: the pick of Sarah Palin takes the "experience" issue off the table, undercutting McCain's best argument against Obama. I'd add - being Mayor of a town of 6000 people, and leaving the place $20 million in the hole perfectly fits the Republican idea of success.

And from The Best F*cking News Team on TV:

Oh yeah.

[UPDATED 9/1] Hail Sarah!

2008-08-29T22:22:00.004-06:00

“I can’t believe a guy that handsome wouldn’t have some impact.” - John McCain on George Bush picking Dan Quayle in 1988. (via Wiki)

I wonder if that tells us all we need to know about John McCain's own VP pick, apart from the fact that she's a woman. I am a little surprised the news didn't leak out sooner - no news about Secret Service details, etc. Guess the McCain camp has better control over its secrets.

More seriously, on its face, the pick reinforces the "maverick" tag, as Governor Palin was elected on a reform platform. As a commenter pointed out on dailykos, Biden might also not go hammer-and-tongs at Governor Palin during the VP debate - that would turn off some more women (remember the NH Dem debate, after which Clinton won?)

The Democratic response has been to hit the "do you really want this person to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?" theme, emphasizing that McCain is 72. The GOP comeback is to say "if you want a debate on experience, let's have it!" However, the Democratic approach may be backwards - what we need to emphasize, as kos points out, is that the Palin pick takes McCain's "Obama is inexperienced" argument off the table (something also picked up by Ramesh Ponnuru). Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, appears to be picking this up in his later comments (I get this impression from his appearance on one of the TV shows) after the initial campaign reaction which Obama apparently didn't like. A better argument is made by Paul Begala, who says the pick calls into question McCain's judgment - as someone who has "always put country first," how could McCain have picked someone so unqualified to be VP?

UPDATE: Michael Kinsley (via dkos) does a fine job, saying

The whole "experience" debate is silly...
That's why the important point about Palin's lack of experience isn't about Palin. It's about McCain. And the question is not how his choice of Palin might complicate his ability to use the "experience" issue or whether he will have to drop experience as an issue. It's not about the proper role of experience as an issue. It's not about experience at all. It's about honesty. The question should be whether McCain -- and all the other Republicans who have been going on for months about Obama's dangerous lack of foreign policy experience -- ever meant a word of it. And the answer is apparently not.

[Emphasis added - RS]

While it is true Palin has not been Governor for long (20 months!), the same "experience" argument made against Obama may not hold - people could look at the VP as a President-in-training, the same way Clinton supporters wanted a Clinton-Obama ticket to "season" Obama. And McCain does not need that many Hillary supporters - just enough like Debra Whassername who believe McCain won't overturn Roe v Wade.

Chuck Todd said someone pointed out to him a 20-year-phenomenon - the GOP picks a newbie for the VP, the Dems ridicule it, but the GOP wins. See Nixon/Agnew '68; Bush/Quayle '88. McCain/Palin '08?
There are differences, though, that could be key to ensuring that is not the case:
First, as Obama showed in his acceptance speech (my take later), he is no Dukakis, Gore or Kerry.
Second, Democratic registrations, I believe, are up this year while Republican registrations are down. So to win, Obama needs to first unify Democrats, maybe cut the 25% or so of Clinton supporters who as of now support McCain for whatever reason by half - the Clintons' and Obama's own speeches should go some way toward accomplishing that goal. Also, Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton, as Representative Wasserman-Schulz said in an interview with NBC (via TNR) - Palin is strongly anti-abortion, a creationist, etc. - a traditional, dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. So if Hillary Clinton supporters were really in it for the issues, they should not vote for Palin.
Third, Obama just needs to stay even among independents, and get enough Obamacans - there is always some support bleed across party lines, and this needs to - and likely will - continue. So he should be reasonably Centrist, but not necessarily aggressively so - most people realize that the country is going in the wrong direction, so some leftward swing wouldn't hurt.
Fourth, Obama, from his days as a community organizer and the massive Chicago voter registration drive, puts a lot of emphasis on the ground game - registration and GOTV. With Palin on the opposite ticket, the GOP GOTV could improve - which makes new voter registration crucial.

Though the McCain campaign storyline says the offer to Palin was made on Thursday morning, I have a strong feeling that T-Paw was the pick till right before Obama's speech. After all, Governor Pawlenty abruptly canceled his press interviews on Thursday. However, after Obama's speech - with the "bring it on, bitches!" 'tude - the McCain campaign took a collective dump in their pants, and decided to throw a Hail Sarah.

Coda: Here's where I wrote Sarah Palin could be a future President (based on an NYT article), and here I say she could be a strong adversary as VP.
Coda 2: McCain probably took Palin as VP to provide "education and training" so a woman could be POTUS...
Coda 3: McCain's acceptance speech is scheduled for next Thursday, when the Giants open the NFL regular season against the Redskins. They might just finish in time for the speech... But that means the rest of the day won't be seen by many! I just wish the NFL had scheduled the Monday Vikings @ Packers game on Thursday instead... would have been beautiful!

Democratic Convention: Day 3

2008-08-27T22:05:00.004-06:00

This was a good day - partly because I watched it on C-SPAN (though there were some audio glitches during Joe Biden's speech). No talking heads interrupting or (worse) replacing the speeches!
There were plenty of good people in-between the Big People. CSM Michele Jones, Lt Gen. Claudia Kennedy (first female 3-star General), Rear Admiral John Hutson (lifelong Republican) (the last two retired), Rep. Patrick Murphy, Tammy Duckworth, Beth Robinson (wife of a Marine, VA activist and MS patient).
Senator Kerry came out firing, comparing Candidate McCain to Senator McCain ("before McCain debates Obama, he has to debate himself!"), and getting the crowd to weigh in on Obama's judgment on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Georgia vs McCain's erroneous acts/proclamations on the same issues. Kerry even came out and said the candidate who wanted to raise the discourse uses only personal attacks and questions Obama's patriotism. Where was this guy in 2004?!
President Clinton got a huge ovation that last a few minutes - he's easily one of the most popular Democrats. More importantly, he strongly endorsed Senator Obama's candidacy, from his (self-described) unique perspective as one of two Democratic Presidents alive. He trumpeted Obama's policies (not generic "Democratic" policies) as superior to McCain's, which I think was very good and effective. Clinton also said Obama is Ready to be President. Now I only hope Clinton doesn't make any more ambivalent statements going forward.
Finally, Joe Biden. He seemed to stumble occasionally, but that appears to be audio glitches in C-SPAN's transmission. Biden's son did a nice introduction, and Joe continued in the personal-story-vein, describing his childhood and his relationship with his mother ("if a bigger boy knocked me down, my mother told me to bloody his nose so I could walk the street the next day!") Described ordinary people worrying about their situation, immediate and future concerns. He also attacked John McCain, on his continuation of the Iraq War, on his (lack of) understanding of the economy, his support of the Bush tax cuts, his opposition to raising the minimum wage, and contrasted McCain's record with Obama's:
"...on the most important national security issues of our time, John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was proven right."
The speech might have been delivered better (which would have really brought the house down), but the content seemed quite good. And the NYT has picked up this impression - that Biden did what was needed - which will be good in driving the narrative.
It was great to see Mama Biden and Obama-Uncle Charles Payne. And the ending visual of Obama with the Family Biden was beautiful.
Some people (like Pat Buchanan on MSNBC!) criticize the Convention for not attacking McCain enough. However, the Convention is keeping Obama's promise of a relatively clean campaign, while still drawing a contrast with McCain and tying McCain to Bush (repeated Freudian slips of "George - I mean, John McCain!") And most importantly, I think Party Unity might have been achieved, except for a small minority of recalcitrant Clintonistas (aka PUMAs).

If most of Hillary Clinton's supporters, both women and senior citizens, come back to the fold, and I think Joe Biden can really help with the 65+-group, then Obama will have a much easier time ahead. Obama repeatedly gave shout-outs to the Clintons, which should have helped. Now it's entirely up to Obama - we will see how his speech goes tomorrow.

Still, as for a post-convention bounce for Obama - McCain's VP announcement and the Republican Convention next week would likely dampen it. But we will see... Though as David Plouffe says, the Obama campaign doesn't care about the horse-race, but are focused on 18 battleground states.

The case for Biden over Clinton as VP

2008-08-26T22:13:00.006-06:00

As I wrote earlier, I had mixed feelings about Senator Joe Biden as VP. But the more I see, the more I like. His personal life story is strong - first sworn-in at his son's hospital bedside, takes the Amtrak almost every night to be with his kids, one of the least-wealthy Senators (his net worth is less than $200,000). Despite 35 years in DC, apparently no enemies. Author of the Violence Against Women Act ("the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades" according to NOW). And just one house!
In addition, Biden can speak with authority on foreign policy, and attack McCain/the Republicans with ease - allowing Obama to remain above the fray.
[Obama/Biden vs McCain/Romney? - two houses, $2 million net worth vs 20 houses, $350 million net worth. Bring on the foreign policy and tax policy debates, bitches!]

Now, Senator Clinton can attack McCain well - as she did a little while earlier ("no way, no how, no McCain!") I have already stated why she would have been a good pick - but also why she'd have been bad, as seen this week with McCain's numerous ads featuring her primary comments.

I just had another thought, though. Biden can make the charge that Republicans are wrong on national security, foreign policy, women's rights, other domestic issues with a lot of credibility. Yes, his 1987 campaign imploded after charges of plagiarism, and there have been other gaffes, but 1987 was two decades ago, and the gaffes are much less serious than McCain's.
On the other hand, the main problem with Senator Clinton is the public perception that she has a troubled relationship with the truth - see Bosnia-gate, for instance. Given her serious charges against Obama - that he does not have the required experience (two decades of public service notwithstanding) - in an official, very public role as the VP, she might not possess the same credibility as "everyman" Joe, as she might be seen as someone who will say anything to get elected. Clinton's main task, if any, over the next two months will be to get her supporters - part of the Democratic base - to back Obama. This is not such a visible role, and is limited to people who trust her.

Coda: I think Senator Clinton's speech tonight was very good, particularly her challenge to her supporters - "are you in this for me, or are you in this for the young Marine and others like him?"
Hopefully, folks look to Hillary more than to Bill, who continues to be publicly ambivalent toward Obama - in the latest instance, President Clinton will apparently not attend Obama's speech at Invesco. Maybe it's as TPM reader JM writes - the old President/new President relationship is always fraught with difficulty. Update: Apparently, departing early is "standard practice" for President Clinton, who did likewise in 2000 and 2004.
Coda 2: Governors Mark Warner and Brian Schweitzer also gave excellent speeches, as did Rep. Nydia Velasquez. Lilly Ledbetter's story was also quite touching, and an example of the injustice that John "women need training and education" McCain will enable (link via Women on Business).

Biden for VP: Mixed feelings

2008-08-22T23:08:00.005-06:00

I am pissed that I didn't get a text message or an e-mail, but instead the news finally leaked out (presumably, after Obama and his capos went to bed). On frickin' CNN - Larry King - and the AP.
Also, Biden is Mr DC - a US Senator since he was 29, and now he's 65. Longer than McCain has been a Senator. More Dick Cheney (WY/DE's 3 EVs) than LBJ (winning TX). Proposed partitioning of Iraq as per ethnic affiliation - India/Pakistan are still suffering the effects of 1947 (as commenter Marshall pointed out on dailykos).
On the other hand - "a noun, and a verb and 9/11." Can be pithy (via Buzzflash) and feisty as needed (when he's not verbose). Georgia (Europe) invited him after the Russian invasion (as opposed to McCain sending Graham/Lieberman unasked).

Still, I hope this is more "Dewey beats Truman", part deux.

UPDATE (8/23, 0811): That was real. Confirmed by the text message I received at 0135 MT. Awoke me, but that's OK - the Obama campaign saved itself by sending out the text at the risk of waking people up, showing they didn't want CNN or other traditional media to break the news. But once it was out, they got on the ball ASAP. Good - I am mollified.

UPDATE 2 (8/25): So some people (PUMAs? Republicans for obvious reasons?) say the text message, sent out close to 3 AM ET Saturday, was a slap in Senator Clinton's face, in response to her "3 AM" ad in the primaries. See my take above (8/23 0811 UPDATE), which is also confirmed by Robert Gibbs, senior Obama campaign adviser.
PUMA counter: Of course Gibbs would say that, seeing the reaction from us!
Ho-hum.