www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Friday, November 10, 2006
A good election
[Warning! Political post - not about gaming]
Next week I'll spend in the USA again, from Monday to Friday. And I'm going there with a smile on my face, because I think the country just had one of the best elections ever. Not because the Democrats "won", I don't believe that either party is much better than the other. But because the election was a very good example of democracy working: The voters clearly expresses what they wanted, and they got it.
Defense secretary is not an elected position. But it was pretty obvious that the voters were unsatisfied with the level of success in the war in Iraq. The "stay the course" vs. "cut and run" debate was silly, because both options were bad. But even Rumsfeld had to admit that "I will say this -- it is very clear that the major combat operations were an enormous success. It's clear that in Phase 2 of this, it has not been going well enough or fast enough." With this Phase 2 now going on for years, at enourmous cost in lives and money, voters demanded a rethink of strategy, plus the head of the guy responsible, and they got it with Rumsfeld's resignation.
The other big issue on voters mind was corruption, with Republicans having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, not to mention page's underpants. Again I don't think that Democrats are fundamentally better. But power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and having the same party in control of all branches of the legislature for many years is not a good idea. Changes in power, and even what the French call "cohabitation", the president and congress being of different parties, is not a bad thing.
Special kudos go to George Allen, who wisely decided not to become the Al Gore of Virginia. By conceding he sent out a clear message that, small as it is, 0.3% difference is larger than the error margin of a vote count. Recounting wouldn't have changed the result, and a lengthy legal process would only have served to cast doubt on the electoral process, and make people think that their votes weren't counting.
Add the highest voter turnout since over 25 years for a midterm election, and it is clear that the one winner of this election was democracy itself. America has stepped away from the dangers of becoming a one-party state, positively differentiating itself from China. Now the USA just needs to fix some minor problems of voting machines and gerrymandering, and they will be again the most democratic nation on earth. The presidential election of 2008 is wide open and will be very interesting. The future is looking bright.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:39 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
I remember the best quote from the whole thing, via FOX:
"It's amazing, (co-anchor)! Many polls have huge lines-- this level of turn-out is aproximately that of four-year elections, not two!"
"It's amazing, (co-anchor)! Many polls have huge lines-- this level of turn-out is aproximately that of four-year elections, not two!"
George lost the House and the Senate, but he still has Fox News.
-Conan O'brien
-Conan O'brien
# posted by 
: 10/11/06 13:39
: 10/11/06 13:39
And the Dems have ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, and NPR.
I predict you will suddenly start seeing the major media reporting that gum drops are raining from they sky. The most under-reported story from the past year is how fantastic the U.S. economy is doing...by every metric.
Hopefully our entire government got the wake up call. Quit screwing around and wasting our money.
I predict you will suddenly start seeing the major media reporting that gum drops are raining from they sky. The most under-reported story from the past year is how fantastic the U.S. economy is doing...by every metric.
Hopefully our entire government got the wake up call. Quit screwing around and wasting our money.
# posted by : 10/11/06 14:48
: 10/11/06 14:48
The most under-reported story from the past year is how fantastic the U.S. economy is doing...by every metric.
How about GDP as metric? This article in Businessweek (not a left-wing media) discusses the anemic 1.6% GDP growth of the third quarter 2006. And there is no doubt that the US housing bubble is at least slowly deflating, if not bursting.
How about GDP as metric? This article in Businessweek (not a left-wing media) discusses the anemic 1.6% GDP growth of the third quarter 2006. And there is no doubt that the US housing bubble is at least slowly deflating, if not bursting.
Call me a cynic, but I suspect the issues and headlines will be virtually the same for the 2008 elections.
I lean Republican, but the bunch that had power for the last 2-6 years didn't answer the call of either fiscal or moral responsibility, and looked inept over and over again, so I can't say I'm sorry to see them go.
On the other hand, I have no expectations for Democrats in Congress, as I don't see them doing anything either -- the election, to me, was a referendum "against" current policy, but I didn't see the Dems put any answers on the table. So I expect same old same old for two more years.
I honestly don't think Iraq was the problem, either. IMO, most people made up their minds on Iraq long ago. We live in a society that expects a "quick fix", and there is no "quick fix" for either the larger problem of terrorism or for the transfer of power to a stable gov't in Iraq. The Middle East has been a thorny US problem for more than 50 years -- and we would just ignore it like we ignore Africa, if not for *oil*.
The Iraq "death toll" will mount just as fast with Dems in Congress as it did with Reps in control of Congress. My son's unit lost three people to a small-plane accident stateside before deployment, and zero in combat in Iraq, but the news won't tell you that about half of the Iraq death toll is non-combat (last time I looked, anyway). The news will not tell you that the US death toll in Iraq will continue to look paltry if compared to US stateside murders or deaths caused by drunk driving on America's highways, either. The media creates news; but again, that's just same old same old.
Also, IMO, the best war strategy is to take the battle to the enemy -- that's not my idea, but a time-tested strategy that has worked for centuries. I suspect that the average person on the street is saddened by US deaths due to terrorism or military conflict in Baghdad -- but US deaths in New York City due to terrorism would be a *much* bigger deal to the average American. The war has been a resounding success, in retrospect, by the measure that (IMO) matters most: On Sept. 12, 2001, *no one* would have ventured to say that five years later there would be *no* terrorism deaths on US soil.
Just my 2 cents...
I lean Republican, but the bunch that had power for the last 2-6 years didn't answer the call of either fiscal or moral responsibility, and looked inept over and over again, so I can't say I'm sorry to see them go.
On the other hand, I have no expectations for Democrats in Congress, as I don't see them doing anything either -- the election, to me, was a referendum "against" current policy, but I didn't see the Dems put any answers on the table. So I expect same old same old for two more years.
I honestly don't think Iraq was the problem, either. IMO, most people made up their minds on Iraq long ago. We live in a society that expects a "quick fix", and there is no "quick fix" for either the larger problem of terrorism or for the transfer of power to a stable gov't in Iraq. The Middle East has been a thorny US problem for more than 50 years -- and we would just ignore it like we ignore Africa, if not for *oil*.
The Iraq "death toll" will mount just as fast with Dems in Congress as it did with Reps in control of Congress. My son's unit lost three people to a small-plane accident stateside before deployment, and zero in combat in Iraq, but the news won't tell you that about half of the Iraq death toll is non-combat (last time I looked, anyway). The news will not tell you that the US death toll in Iraq will continue to look paltry if compared to US stateside murders or deaths caused by drunk driving on America's highways, either. The media creates news; but again, that's just same old same old.
Also, IMO, the best war strategy is to take the battle to the enemy -- that's not my idea, but a time-tested strategy that has worked for centuries. I suspect that the average person on the street is saddened by US deaths due to terrorism or military conflict in Baghdad -- but US deaths in New York City due to terrorism would be a *much* bigger deal to the average American. The war has been a resounding success, in retrospect, by the measure that (IMO) matters most: On Sept. 12, 2001, *no one* would have ventured to say that five years later there would be *no* terrorism deaths on US soil.
Just my 2 cents...
I have no idea how european politics work, but I dread the next election. For weeks prior to election day I was innundated with politcal calls. Most of these were recorded, but some were live people who would not shut up until I hung up.
My phone is unlisted, unpublished, registered with the national do-not-call list, and has privacy manager. This stops most telemarketers, but of course the politicians allow themselves holes through this.
It got annoying, especially as they are usually antagonistic against each other. One call I recieved had the woman telling me her "friend" (the canidate) was for stem cell research, education funding, lowering taxes, and a bunch of other hot topics. However, she was sure to point out, the other person was against all of this. What amazing luck that this canidate was there to rally against this obvious evil person!
*sigh*
My phone is unlisted, unpublished, registered with the national do-not-call list, and has privacy manager. This stops most telemarketers, but of course the politicians allow themselves holes through this.
It got annoying, especially as they are usually antagonistic against each other. One call I recieved had the woman telling me her "friend" (the canidate) was for stem cell research, education funding, lowering taxes, and a bunch of other hot topics. However, she was sure to point out, the other person was against all of this. What amazing luck that this canidate was there to rally against this obvious evil person!
*sigh*
# posted by : 10/11/06 18:05
: 10/11/06 18:05
Two things,
I'm not sure that the economy is actually doing well. The stock market is, but 80% of all stock is owned by the very rich. I'm glad that Bill Gates and co are doing well, but their success is not mine. The housing market is falling, and the middle class is in debt up to their eyebrows. The only way that you could make this be a good thing for America is if you think that investment income is more important than labor income, which it is not for probably about 99% of the country.
I also have to disagree with Tobold in re. George Allen. There is this absurd meme in the media that it is more important that elections end quickly rather than correctly. I think the media believes this because they are tired of being on the campaign trail, but I'm not sure why a private citizen would not be concerned with having all votes actually counted.
Al Gore has an excellent case that in Florida the majority of voters intended to vote for him, whether or not poorly designed ballots and voter intimidation made that impossible for them. The New York Times and Washington Post counted the votes and found that Gore won, but of course that took them until Nov 2001. Why should we not want the correct winner, even if it takes until December or even January?
It will be years before anyone knows whether or not Allen might actually have won a recount. But why are we in such a hurry to award the victory to someone who might not have won. I'm glad Webb won, but I wouldn't have minded waiting 2 months to know for sure. I think Allen's decision to not contest has a lot to do with his frequent comments that he disliked being in the senate and saw it as only a stepping stone to the presidency. With his presidential campaign stillborn, I don't think he cared to return to the Senate.
I'm not sure that the economy is actually doing well. The stock market is, but 80% of all stock is owned by the very rich. I'm glad that Bill Gates and co are doing well, but their success is not mine. The housing market is falling, and the middle class is in debt up to their eyebrows. The only way that you could make this be a good thing for America is if you think that investment income is more important than labor income, which it is not for probably about 99% of the country.
I also have to disagree with Tobold in re. George Allen. There is this absurd meme in the media that it is more important that elections end quickly rather than correctly. I think the media believes this because they are tired of being on the campaign trail, but I'm not sure why a private citizen would not be concerned with having all votes actually counted.
Al Gore has an excellent case that in Florida the majority of voters intended to vote for him, whether or not poorly designed ballots and voter intimidation made that impossible for them. The New York Times and Washington Post counted the votes and found that Gore won, but of course that took them until Nov 2001. Why should we not want the correct winner, even if it takes until December or even January?
It will be years before anyone knows whether or not Allen might actually have won a recount. But why are we in such a hurry to award the victory to someone who might not have won. I'm glad Webb won, but I wouldn't have minded waiting 2 months to know for sure. I think Allen's decision to not contest has a lot to do with his frequent comments that he disliked being in the senate and saw it as only a stepping stone to the presidency. With his presidential campaign stillborn, I don't think he cared to return to the Senate.
# posted by : 10/11/06 18:35
: 10/11/06 18:35
Quickly, about the economy...
The USA right now is the most affluent and posh society the world has ever seen, period.
Even the US "middle class" is richer and lives more lavishly than probably 99% of the rest of the world's population.
Around here, the "middle class" may be in debt, but they live far better than the doctors and lawyers did just 30 years ago. I'm middle class, and our household has four persons in a "smallish" house (around 2000 sq. ft.) for our area, four vehicles (twenty years ago I'd have laughed if you said I'd be driving a Mercedes sedan), three computers, two TVs, a nice stereo, cable TV & internet, three cell phones, closets full of clothes, a growing 401K plan (sweet that the Dow is at all-time highs), access to superb health and dental and vision care, free time and plenty of spending money to spend on entertainment and eating out whenever I want, two with post-grad education and two in college, and on and on and on...
Yeah, and some debt -- I pay bills, too. That's why I take breaks from WoW (3 subscriptions in the household; another luxury of money and free time) to go to my computer job.
We have it easy.
The USA right now is the most affluent and posh society the world has ever seen, period.
Even the US "middle class" is richer and lives more lavishly than probably 99% of the rest of the world's population.
Around here, the "middle class" may be in debt, but they live far better than the doctors and lawyers did just 30 years ago. I'm middle class, and our household has four persons in a "smallish" house (around 2000 sq. ft.) for our area, four vehicles (twenty years ago I'd have laughed if you said I'd be driving a Mercedes sedan), three computers, two TVs, a nice stereo, cable TV & internet, three cell phones, closets full of clothes, a growing 401K plan (sweet that the Dow is at all-time highs), access to superb health and dental and vision care, free time and plenty of spending money to spend on entertainment and eating out whenever I want, two with post-grad education and two in college, and on and on and on...
Yeah, and some debt -- I pay bills, too. That's why I take breaks from WoW (3 subscriptions in the household; another luxury of money and free time) to go to my computer job.
We have it easy.
Right on, Doeg. But you forgot to include that unemployment is less than 4%. If I recall correctly, aren't the unemployment rates in several European countries around the 10% mark?
A major problem facing the poor in the U.S. is not that of starvation, but rather obesity.
If the U.S. was so godawful, why would people around the world be moving here?
A major problem facing the poor in the U.S. is not that of starvation, but rather obesity.
If the U.S. was so godawful, why would people around the world be moving here?
# posted by : 10/11/06 20:29
: 10/11/06 20:29
Without being rude, I have realized here that I should never try and discuss economic issues unless I am doing it with fellow economists or those trained in economics.
Try this on for size, say it like a mantra.
"Real wages in this country have been stagnant for more than 40 years."
"Real wages in this country have been stagnant for more than 40 years."
40 years is a long time, so this clearly isn't exclusively George W's problem. Both democratic and republican governments have contributed, but I hardly think that the statement "the economy is doing great" can be uttered honestly while real wages remain where they were in 1963.
I'm glad you are doing well deog, but arguing from personal anecdote is a losing proposition. And I would bet that, like many professionals, you have a distorted idea of what middle class means. Keep in mind that in this country the median yearly income is somewhere between 30-40k. How many of your toys could you afford if you earned that median. I know that I personally would not like to figure out what my budget might be at that salary level.
And anonymous took a tired Rush Limbaugh talking point (I kid you not, check the transcripts from 93-94) and ran with it. Obesity in America is a problem that correlates with poverty, but the reason is, ironically enough, that they can't afford food. Healthy food that is. Do a price comparison of a bag of doritos versus the equivelant calories in fresh fruits and vegetables and you might see what I mean.
Try this on for size, say it like a mantra.
"Real wages in this country have been stagnant for more than 40 years."
"Real wages in this country have been stagnant for more than 40 years."
40 years is a long time, so this clearly isn't exclusively George W's problem. Both democratic and republican governments have contributed, but I hardly think that the statement "the economy is doing great" can be uttered honestly while real wages remain where they were in 1963.
I'm glad you are doing well deog, but arguing from personal anecdote is a losing proposition. And I would bet that, like many professionals, you have a distorted idea of what middle class means. Keep in mind that in this country the median yearly income is somewhere between 30-40k. How many of your toys could you afford if you earned that median. I know that I personally would not like to figure out what my budget might be at that salary level.
And anonymous took a tired Rush Limbaugh talking point (I kid you not, check the transcripts from 93-94) and ran with it. Obesity in America is a problem that correlates with poverty, but the reason is, ironically enough, that they can't afford food. Healthy food that is. Do a price comparison of a bag of doritos versus the equivelant calories in fresh fruits and vegetables and you might see what I mean.
# posted by : 10/11/06 22:52
: 10/11/06 22:52
Call me a cynic, but I suspect the issues and headlines will be virtually the same for the 2008 elections.
I'm actually holding out some hope for the "issues" come 2008. Since it looks like bringing up "stay the course vs. cut and run" didn't really help the republicans this time. I'd really like to see some more discussion on education. Maybe someone could come up with a good alternative to No Child Left Behind. I'm betting no one's really opposed it much because they can't think of anything better, embarrassing as that is.
I'm actually holding out some hope for the "issues" come 2008. Since it looks like bringing up "stay the course vs. cut and run" didn't really help the republicans this time. I'd really like to see some more discussion on education. Maybe someone could come up with a good alternative to No Child Left Behind. I'm betting no one's really opposed it much because they can't think of anything better, embarrassing as that is.
# posted by : 11/11/06 13:21
: 11/11/06 13:21
I have an alternative to No Child Left Behind: cease and desist all federal education funding. It is not the mandate of the federal government to fund education. And don't give me that tired argument about the "general welfare" clause. Leave education funding to the individual states.
# posted by : 11/11/06 23:57
: 11/11/06 23:57
Actually, regarding the economy, it is also a logical error to attempt to take a complex system such as a first-world economy and use a single-cause argument such as "real wages".
Bottom line: America is clearly a very rich, very posh country with excellent health care and every amenity that anyone could want.
I don't need to argue from personal anecdote -- if you live in the USA I can virtually guarantee that you have a plethora of "stuff" that you didn't / couldn't / wouldn't have 40 years ago, such as your PC and WoW subscription, and probably a larger house, microwave, answering machine / voicemail and cell phone, color TV (possibly large-screen, possibly HD), cable / satellite service, VCR / DVD, music CDs, superior health care, superior car / SUV / hybrid, wider variety / selection at the grocery, wide selection in restaurants and the money to eat out, and so on.
Ironically, the very medium of conversation supports my point -- 40 years ago there was no WoW, no blogging, no Internet, no PCs...
Bottom line: America is clearly a very rich, very posh country with excellent health care and every amenity that anyone could want.
I don't need to argue from personal anecdote -- if you live in the USA I can virtually guarantee that you have a plethora of "stuff" that you didn't / couldn't / wouldn't have 40 years ago, such as your PC and WoW subscription, and probably a larger house, microwave, answering machine / voicemail and cell phone, color TV (possibly large-screen, possibly HD), cable / satellite service, VCR / DVD, music CDs, superior health care, superior car / SUV / hybrid, wider variety / selection at the grocery, wide selection in restaurants and the money to eat out, and so on.
Ironically, the very medium of conversation supports my point -- 40 years ago there was no WoW, no blogging, no Internet, no PCs...
Bottom line: America is clearly a very rich, very posh country with excellent health care and every amenity that anyone could want.
That is true for the "average" American, the very broad middle class. But you are right that it is very hard to summarize an economy in a single number. Look at this report. It shows that for example the GDP per person is higher in the USA than in any other OECD country. But at the same time the USA is leading the poverty rate table, with 17% of the population living in poverty, while in the Scandinavian countries (where the GDP per person is much lower) the percentage of people living in poverty is only around 6%. Plus the USA has 0.7% of their population in jail, while European countries on average have less than 0.1% of their population incarcerated. On the other hand the unemployment rate in Europe is twice as high as in the USA, suggesting that in the USA you can work and still be poor, while in Europe you can be unemployed and still not be poor.
In effect neither of these numbers really tells you how rich the population of a country "feels". It not only depends on the amount of money, and how it is distributed, but also how the development is. So the population in a poorer country with a high growth rate might be happier than the population of the USA with stagnant real wages and most of the GDP growth ending up in the pockets of a small percentage of rich people.
That is true for the "average" American, the very broad middle class. But you are right that it is very hard to summarize an economy in a single number. Look at this report. It shows that for example the GDP per person is higher in the USA than in any other OECD country. But at the same time the USA is leading the poverty rate table, with 17% of the population living in poverty, while in the Scandinavian countries (where the GDP per person is much lower) the percentage of people living in poverty is only around 6%. Plus the USA has 0.7% of their population in jail, while European countries on average have less than 0.1% of their population incarcerated. On the other hand the unemployment rate in Europe is twice as high as in the USA, suggesting that in the USA you can work and still be poor, while in Europe you can be unemployed and still not be poor.
In effect neither of these numbers really tells you how rich the population of a country "feels". It not only depends on the amount of money, and how it is distributed, but also how the development is. So the population in a poorer country with a high growth rate might be happier than the population of the USA with stagnant real wages and most of the GDP growth ending up in the pockets of a small percentage of rich people.
Unfortunately we are in an age of a "foundation" or "consortium" claims to be nonpartisan, finds some degreed persons, publishes a report, and releases it to the media in a press conference for "instant credibility". I prefer reports that are published in peer-reviewed journals and are subject, first, to the scrutiny of the scientific community with findings verified by parallel independent studies.
It is also interesting that a report would contend that almost 1 in 5 Americans live in poverty. I scanned the report for a definition of poverty -- either there was none, or I missed it.
Lacking a definition, I strongly suspect that an American described as living in "poverty" by the report probably has a far better standard of living than those in poverty in many or most other countries. I noted that the report arbitrarily chose OECD member countries -- but only 19 -- another source reports that there are 30 OECD member countries.
In other words, the report...
(A) Appears to have arbitrarily selected data (perhaps to reach a desired conclusion?), which is a logical error sometimes called "hasty generalization" (characterized by too little evidence or on exceptional or biased evidence)
(B) Is likely comparing apples to oranges, committing the logical error of equivocation
But I'm rather suspicious by nature... :P
It is also interesting that a report would contend that almost 1 in 5 Americans live in poverty. I scanned the report for a definition of poverty -- either there was none, or I missed it.
Lacking a definition, I strongly suspect that an American described as living in "poverty" by the report probably has a far better standard of living than those in poverty in many or most other countries. I noted that the report arbitrarily chose OECD member countries -- but only 19 -- another source reports that there are 30 OECD member countries.
In other words, the report...
(A) Appears to have arbitrarily selected data (perhaps to reach a desired conclusion?), which is a logical error sometimes called "hasty generalization" (characterized by too little evidence or on exceptional or biased evidence)
(B) Is likely comparing apples to oranges, committing the logical error of equivocation
But I'm rather suspicious by nature... :P
How trusting would you be towards the US Department of Agriculture. It reports that in 2002 a full 11.1% of US households were experiencing "food insecurity", not being able to afford at all times enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. That looks like serious enough poverty to me, from a sufficiently official source.
But of course poverty is very hard to define. If you take a "less than $1 per day" poverty definition, there are very few poor people in the USA. But of course $1 gets you a lot more food in Bangladesh than in the USA, because of the difference in purchasing power. I think the definition in the report I quoted above was "less than half of the median income". If you take the official US "poverty line" definition, ("lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health" see here), the poverty rate in the USA is 12.7%. But whether the poverty rate is 11%, 12.7%, or 17%, I think we can agree that either of these numbers is too high.
But of course poverty is very hard to define. If you take a "less than $1 per day" poverty definition, there are very few poor people in the USA. But of course $1 gets you a lot more food in Bangladesh than in the USA, because of the difference in purchasing power. I think the definition in the report I quoted above was "less than half of the median income". If you take the official US "poverty line" definition, ("lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health" see here), the poverty rate in the USA is 12.7%. But whether the poverty rate is 11%, 12.7%, or 17%, I think we can agree that either of these numbers is too high.
I fully agree that any poverty is too much poverty, but unfortunately poverty will always be with us.
Another problem is that poverty is a relative measure; for example, as you point out it is virtually impossible to establish a worldwide poverty definition or measurement.
Also unfortunate is that poverty is used as a political tool. Some politicians are genuine in their good intentions, but I suspect that many (most?) simply use poverty to gain power or wealth (the debacle of the Iraq oil-for-food program being just one of a multitude of examples of this).
Finally, some persons are content to remain impoverished or "milk the system"; for example it was a well-known problem in the US welfare system that single mothers were having illegitimate children to retain their welfare status, so many states actually enacted laws to curb the problem.
...
An interesting conversation about a quite difficult problem... :)
Post a Comment
Another problem is that poverty is a relative measure; for example, as you point out it is virtually impossible to establish a worldwide poverty definition or measurement.
Also unfortunate is that poverty is used as a political tool. Some politicians are genuine in their good intentions, but I suspect that many (most?) simply use poverty to gain power or wealth (the debacle of the Iraq oil-for-food program being just one of a multitude of examples of this).
Finally, some persons are content to remain impoverished or "milk the system"; for example it was a well-known problem in the US welfare system that single mothers were having illegitimate children to retain their welfare status, so many states actually enacted laws to curb the problem.
...
An interesting conversation about a quite difficult problem... :)
<< Home
