Category Archives: Politics and Government
Fair v Objective
I think our society has taken being “fair” to an extreme. We have confused the freedoms we have to be an excuse to be able to have a stupid opinion and for that wrong opinion to be worth as much as a correct valid opinion supported by facts.
The is most evident in being “fair” in media reports. The media is so concerned with being labeled biased, that they give equal time and weight to stupid opposing arguments. This is best summed up by the popular quote from Paul Krugman:
The media are desperately afraid of being accused of bias. And that’s partly because there’s a whole machine out there, an organized attempt to accuse them of bias whenever they say anything that the Right doesn’t like. So rather than really try to report things objectively, they settle for being even-handed, which is not the same thing. One of my lines in a column—in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally—was that if Bush said the Earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: ‘Shape of Earth—Views Differ.’ Then they’d quote some Democrats saying that it was round.
This is the key difference in being objective. Being objective means not letting personal biases change your reporting or opinion of something. If something is obviously true, you shouldn’t say it could be false just because that fits your world view or would benefit you in some way.
Stop being fair. Be objective.
Distribution of Wealth
One of my least favorite arguments is that “we have to give tax cuts to the rich, because they are the job creators and so they will employ more workers and thus stimulate the economy.” I believe the exact opposite is true. If the middle and lower classes don’t purchase the upper class’s goods the economy sputters to a stop. The employers won’t hire more workers while sales are slumped. Giving them tax cuts simply gives them more money to save, not spend. You have to help the middle class spend money to spur the economy. When they start purchasing goods, the employers are encouraged to hire in order to continue growing.
In line with this thinking, from Daring Fireball:
Robert Reich in the NY Times:
Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.
I.e., the evidence overwhelmingly shows that “trickle-down economics” has it exactly backwards. The infographic that accompanies Reich’s article is just terrific.
See the infographic after the jump. Read the rest of this entry
Political science: why rejecting expertise has become a campaign strategy
For many in the US, expertise has taken on a negative cultural value; experts are part of an elite that thinks it knows better than the average citizen. (This is accurate, for what it’s worth.) Very few object to that sort of expertise when it comes time to, say, put the space shuttle into orbit, but expertise can become a problem when the experts have reached a consensus that runs against cultural values.
And, for many in our society, scientific expertise has done just that. Abstinence-only sex education has been largely ineffective. Carbon emissions are creating a risk of climate change. Humanity originated via an evolutionary process. All of these findings have threatened various aspects of people’s cultural identity. By rejecting both the science and the expertise behind it, candidates can essentially send a signal that says, “I’m one of you, and I’m with you where it counts.”
Chad’s got a blog!
A friend from undergrad has started a blog. It is far more highbrow than the average blog I link to. He is posting some fascinating thoughts and theories on “innovations in political science, economics, public policy, philosophy, business, finance, art, development, or science broadly speaking” as he puts it.
Go check out Prospects: Exploring Possibilities.
PROTECT IP Act
The new version of COICA was unveiled today. This is a big overhaul of IP protections in the United States. A lot of analysis will come out in the next few days, but if you want to see the bill yourself you can read the announcement and summary here. If you want to read the actual text of the bill you can also see that here.
Some of the key protections:
The PROTECT IP Act will provide law enforcement with important tools to stop websites dedicated to online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods, which range from new movie and music releases, to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. Key updates to the PROTECT IP Act include:
- A narrower definition of an Internet site “dedicated to infringing activities”;
- Authorization for the Attorney General to serve an issued court order on a search engine, in addition to payment processors, advertising networks and Internet service providers;
- Authorization for both the Attorney General and rights holders to bring actions against online infringers operating an internet site or domain where the site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” but with remedies limited to eliminating the financial viability of the site, not blocking access;
- Requirement of plaintiffs to attempt to bring an action against the owner or registrant of the domain name used to access an Internet site “dedicated to infringing activities” before bringing an action against the domain name itself;
- Protection for domain name registries, registrars, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks from damages resulting from their voluntary action against an Internet site “dedicated to infringing activities,” where that site also “endangers the public health,” by offering controlled or non-controlled prescription medication.
You Think We’re Stupid?
I wish the President had this much backbone in public.
On Thursday, a live mic recorded the president talking to Democratic friends about the budget negotiations in what was supposed to be an off-the-record exchange. Railing on the Republicans for trying to sneak in attacks on health care reform and other priorities as part of the budget process, Obama said he told the GOP, “You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We’ll have that debate. But you’re not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we’re stupid?’”
Just last week I was listening to each side arguing about the each side’s plan for the budget and deficit reduction. In my mind, after I heard Obama’s speech regarding his, I thought “Okay, thats great. Now just give up all those things and cave in to the Republican demands, like you always do, so we can move on a little quicker this time.” Hopefully, this is indicative of a stronger Democratic stand on key issues.
The Independent Voter Myth
I could not agree with this analysis of so-called “Independent Voters” more.
Mike Larsen opines that Independent Voters are in large part not people looking for true third party options or some kind of person to be swayed, but just largely mis or under informed, or have some other reason for voting third party.
His top three, which I agree with:
GROUP 1 — BANDWAGON VOTERS (32%): Don’t understand politics but like voting for the
winner.GROUP 2 — BUM THROWERS (27%): Contrarians who vote against whoever’s
in power.GROUP 3 — LESSER EVIL LOVERS (17%): Believe that everyone on the ballot is fatally
flawed, so they vote for the least qualified.
Census results could be good for Democrats
The 2010 US Census results have been announced. Most of the analysis has indicated that the population shifts will benefit the Republicans. Why? Because the southern states – which typically vote republican – are going to get more electoral college votes.
From an NPR interview:
WERTHEIMER: Fine, thanks. The Census results are used to redraw congressional districts for the House of Representatives. Which states gained seats in the House?
Mr. GROVES: Well, the big gainer was Texas with four seats, but other states that added seats are Arizona, Florida with two, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.
WERTHEIMER: And which states are the losers?
Mr. GROVES: Both New York and Ohio lost two seats each, and then a set of states lost one. They include Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
However, I think long term, this could be good for the Democrats. If these southern states are seeing explosive population growth, that likely means that these southern states will have larger metropolitan areas with denser cities. It is recognized that urban populations tend to vote more liberal than rural areas.
So, perhaps these southern states will begin becoming more blue in a few years after this growth continues.
Post Election Night – Takeaways
The Mid-Term elections were especially brutal to the Democrats, as was predicted. However, I don’t believe this is the full endorsement of the Republicans that conservatives think it is.
Polls continued to show that voters did not have a positive opinion of Republicans (they didn’t of Democrats either, but thats obvious). The problem is that voters did not like how Democrats were fairing, but we live in a largely two party system. They voted for Republicans because there was no other choice.
In fact, voters often voted for the tea party candidate. I theorize that this is in fact less that the tea partiers were on the extreme right, than the fact that they successfully cast themselves in a light as the “other” party. A nice alternative to the traditional Dems and Reps.
This election was not a vote of confidence in Republicans, but an indicator that the public is not happy with the status quo. It is for this reason that Republicans should be just as concerned as liberals are currently. Voters have very short memory. They voted for the right -the people who screwed up the country, because the party cleaning it up wasn’t doing a good enough job of fixing it. Give it two more years, and the swing, independent voters might see that handing the jobs over to the right wasn’t a good idea either.
