Since we are into tables (I love tables and charts! They are the best part of data analysis!), I wanted to add a few here. In my previous comments I mentioned the number of Insurgent attacks. So I started thinking about trend lines for attacks in relation to lines for casualities. These numbers come from various indicies published by the Brookings Institution and from The U.S. Defense Department. So my numbers may be a bit different from those presented by Dr. S. It is really hard to get solid numbers as war is chaos. So counting the costs is something of an imprecise science. But I think these are accurate enough to get the idea.
I was surprised to see that the number of attacks as remained fairly stable even in the number of U.S. military casualities has been jagged.
I also wanted to add something here about Iraqi Civilians. They tend to be forgotten in these disucssions. But they are paying dearly in blood for this war.
* numbers before Jan 06 exclude Murders. Numbers from Jan 06 forward include all violent causes. The justification provided by Bookings is that at this point, there is little or no difference between murder and death caused by the war itself. That is telling.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Violence In Iraq
Casualty Rates in OIF
I located some solid data on troop strength from globalsecurity.org, which is usually a reliable source. What strikes me is that the U.S. force level in Iraq appears to have remained fairly stable: in terms of raw numbers, the "surge" is not particularly significant.
Not surprisingly then, when one normalizes the data by force level to look at the casualty rates (percentage of deployed troops killed or wounded), the graph looks almost the same.
Click to enlarge images
He's Roving Again
OK, who wants to bet that Rove resigned from his post as White House Chief Advisor in order to begin his dirty tricks campaign against Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and to promote Romney? Now that the Iowa Straw Poll is over, and Thompson is withdrawling, the Republicans have to start focusing on a viable candidate. That is where Rove will concentrate his efforts. On the side, he will deal with Congress.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Another Grim Update
This is an update to two earlier posts (Dec 2005 and Nov. 2006) concerning the mounting casualties in Iraq. While the Bush Administration attributes the rising casualties to the troop "surge," it is worth observing that it also continues a trend reported on this blog for a couple of years.
Data courtesy of icasualties.org
[Click to Enlarge Image]
Total U.S. soldiers killed: 36,83
Total U.S. soldiers wounded: 27,186
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Bob Allen
So in case you missed it, the Daily Show had an excellent report about the misadventures of Florida State Senator Bob Allen. You know ... the guy who offered an undercover police officer $20 so he could perform oral sex on the officer ... and then (if that wasn't bad enough) blamed the situation on being afraid of black guys.
Crooks and Liars has the video of the Daily Show's rundown. Don't miss John Oliver's alternate alibis. Beautiful.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Vote Swapping Vindicated. mostly.
Remember the vote trading sites that sprang up during the 2000 election? They tried to pair up Nader supporters in swing states with Gore supporters in solidly Democratic states, and have them pledge to swap or exchange votes--thereby helping guarantee the 5% that Nader was seeking without damaging Gore's chances of winning. A few hundred of these in Florida might have tipped the race, but that did not occur.
Well, a court case wending its way through the judicial system finally reached partial resolution yesterday. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2000 vote swapping sites were not "vote-buying" and were protected by the First Amendment... at least to the extent that California Secretary of State Bill Jones' threatened lawsuits (which shut down at least one site) were not sufficiently tailored to achieve the state's legitimate purposes (preventing vote buying).
Because such vote swaps were unverifiable and unenforceable, the idea is nifty but will never go anywhere. Only relatives and close friends who trust each other can likely make such things work, and that necessarily means a small scale. Still, the existence of these sites illustrates how voters in states with solid majorities that tilt toward one party or the other feel disenfranchised, no matter which side they are on.
Et tu, Iowa?
So South Carolina has just voted to bump its Republican primary to January 19th from Jan 29th. The local Democrats are expected to follow suit. New Hampshire is scheduled for Jan 22. Since NH state law requires it to be first in the nation, it will move its date earlier. Other states are expected to follow. If NH moves before Iowa (now scheduled for 1/14), Iowa will feel obliged to move. And Nevada, which was to fall between Iowa and NH, will also move. Feb 5th is now so popular that 20 states have their votes that day - including big states like CA and NY. The parties have tried to forbid earlier primaries by claiming they won't seat delegates, but nobody takes that threat seriously. Besides which, the main benefit of the early votes was always the public perception of being a winner, not the delegates.
The danger is rising that primaries may spill into late 2007. It's an idiotic game of chicken. Everyone knows what is causing it: Iowa and NH want to keep their privileged first-in-the-nation position, and other states want to to intrude upon it. This is a classic case of American politics gone stupid, where everyone sees the problem and nobody dares to try to fix it. It's related to the gridlock phenomenon that others have talked about.
So, what is the solution?
Possibilities:
1. Federal law barring any presidential primary election before March 1st. There might be constitutional issues with that, but I think it could be made to pass muster.
2. Create rotating regional primaries of some kind.
3. My suggestion: 2 years before each presidential election date, pick dates and order of primaries and caucuses by random draw.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Is Gridlock a Problem for Democracy?
To address this question we have a rough idea of what we mean when we say "democracy." Many people think that democracy is "rule of the majority." But many governments enact policies with broad even majority support without anything resembling what we would recognize as a democracy. Consider as examples the populists dictatorships of Juan Peron in Argentina or Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. Even brutal dictators often may have majority support particularly during war time. Of course it is difficult to poll such dictatorships so these are just guesses on my part but I think they are reasonable guesses, at least for purposes of making the point on a blog.
If simply enacting the policies that a majority would support isn't sufficient for democracy, what things are common to all democracies that we can use to define them? Minority protection is actually the foundation of democracies. That is, people with minority opinions/preferences are protected from what the US Founding Fathers called the "tyranny of the majority." Minority protection features are found in nearly every democracy. The UK may be an exception but in practice minority views are reasonably protected most of the time.
By far the most common way to protect minority views is to establish legislative institutions that require super-majorities to pass laws. This can take the form of bicameralsim legislatures in which power is more or less balanced between the chambers as in the US, Germany or Australia. It can also take the form of establishing electoral systems that encourage the proliferation of parties as in such multi-party parliamentary systems as Belgium, Denmark, Israel or Italy. You can even see both as in Germany.
The reason bicameralism protects minority views is that it tends to be based on different electoral systems, election timing and or districts/constituencies. The result is that it is more difficult for a single party representing a narrow constituency to gain control of both chambers at the same time. It forces compromise.
The reason that adding more parties to the system protects minority views is that it makes it unlikely that a single party would win enough votes to win a majority of the seats on its own. It prevents one party from having all the power. It forces compromise.
Forcing compromise in legislative often means that some laws fail to be passed because a compromise cannot be made. Failure to make a compromise is not necessarily a failure of character. It is more likely a reflection of legitimate differences in the policy preferences of constituencies who agreement is required to pass a new law.
And that is gridlock. Is it bad for democracy? No. Indeed, it is a very common consequence of one of the fundamental concepts of democracy itself: minority protection.
Why Adding a Party Will Not Reduce Gridlock
There are many people out there who blame gridlock on the two party system. "If only there were a viable third party," they cry, "then we could get Congress to do what really needs to be done."
But will adding another party change things? Suppose we add a third party to the left of the Democrats (the Green option). Suppose further that it is wildly successful and manages to get a a quarter of the seats in the House at the expense of the Democrats. The Republicans have roughly half of the seats and the Greens and the Democrats together have roughly half the seats. Suppose that in the Senate the Greens manage to get a few seats, again at the expense of Democrats, but the Republicans retain roughly half. In this scenario, all that has been done is that the left of both houses of Congress has been divided, forcing a compromise between the Greens and Democrats prior to any attempt to get bills passed. In short, this has added yet another bargaining step to the legislative process. This will make changes smaller, less frequent and slower to enact.
Suppose we add a party in the middle (the Ross Perot/Jesse Ventura option). In this situation, the party in the middle might become a kind of legislative king maker. However, it would require that either the Democrats or Republicans would have to make a deal with the middle party to get things passed.
Both of these scenarios leave out the President who has a veto. Adding a third party to Presidential competition is extremely unlikely so long as we continue to have a single individual serve as president (I can elaborate upon request). Suppose the Democrats and Greens (or Middle party) strike a deal and pass a new law. The Republican President vetos the bill and the Republicans in Congress are still strong enough to preserve the veto.
What really brings on our gridlock is not the number of parties (actually two parties is about as good an environment as you can hope for if you want to minimize gridlock and still preserve democracy). Rather our multi-stage legislative procedure is the root of gridlock. For a bill to become a law, it must gain at least a majority in the House and Senate (often a 3/5 majority in the Senate if one party is willing to filibuster) pluss the consent of the President. That is effectively a tri-cameral legislative process. The only times this is circumvented and gridlock goes away is in the unlikely event of a single, unified party gaining control of all three.
Adding more parties will not change this. It could make it worse.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Median Voter Theory
The following graphs (which required a fair bit of work) display the percentage of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate held by the majority party in the past 110 Congressional sessions. (Figures reflect biennial election results only, not subsequent deaths or defections.) You can click on the graphs to enlarge them.
Let me draw your attention to a pattern: the House and Senate have gradually become more evenly divided over time. This suggests to me that the Democratic and Republican parties have become quite good at competing with each other. We have entered an era where razor-thin majorities become the norm.
Although the Democratic and Republican party platforms have much in common, especially when compared to divisions among European parties, there are still significant differences between them. They have not fully converged to the views of the median voter, but appear instead to have converged to a state of constant polarization; other forces are still at work keeping the parties some distance apart.
Given the supermajority rules of the Senate, has the efficiency of the major party duopoly condemned us to an era of partisan gridlock? Is this a flaw in Madisonian Democracy?
2008 Scenarios
Possibility of a Tie in the Electoral College:
All results same as 2004 except:
1. Dems win IA, NM, and NV
2. Dems win IA and AZ
3. Dems win Ohio but lose DE or NH
4. Dems win Ohio and IA but lose WI
5. Dems win FL but lose WI
(note: currently, Dems win a tie b/c Dems control 26 state delegations, GOP control 21, and 5 are tied)
Dems win election:
All results same as 2004 except:
1. Dems win CO, NM, and NV
2. Dems win MO and IA
3. Dems win VA and either NM, NV, or CO
4. Dems win Ohio
5. Dems win FL
Dems lose election:
All results same as 2004 except:
1. Dems in CO and IA
Six Percent
On July 19, the Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed 14000 for the first time--but now it has now fallen 800 points. The S&P 500 also reached a record high on July 19 at 1553--but has now plummeted 100 points. The Nasdaq Composite index also peaked on July 19 at 2,718--but has now fallen 170 points. In other words, all three major U.S. stock indices peaked simultaneously and have now fallen 6% or more in just eight trading days.
Worldwide we see the same thing. The Australian Stock Exchange index (S&P/ASX 200) suffered same percentage fall from its high on July 24, including a 3.3% plunge yesterday unequaled since Sept 17, 2001. The FTSE 100 in London was trading at or near record highs throughout most of July, but since July 20th it has also fallen over 6%. Similarly, the Nikkei 225 fell the same percentage over the same period.
I am no expert, so perhaps this means nothing, but I am concerned that this might be the leading edge of a worldwide slump. If so, I wonder what effect that might have on the U.S. Presidential primaries next year. Traditionally, a faltering economy is good for the opposition... could the Democrats take the White House but lose Congress?
Friday, July 27, 2007
"Support the Troops"
Three items that have a similar theme caught my eye recently:
1. This post by Digby, which like anything else Digby writes, is totally worth reading and very telling.
2. Atrios makes a good catch about someone talking with a right-wing radio host... and
3. This Kelly cartoon from "The Onion" sums ups everything perfectly. Go check out all three links - there's a common theme. When wingers talk about "supporting the troops", they really mean "supporting the President", which means "follow whatever he says". The actual disdain for the troops is palpable and sad. Expect to see this theme a lot more soon, as Republicans argue that the troops shouldn't be concerned with long tours of duty without coming home very often.
What the F*** New Zealand?
OK, what's with New Zealand? I just heard on the Daily Show that New Zealand's parliament just passed a law banning the use of images from their parliament for political satire.
Now leaving aside the obvious restriction of free speech in a democratic country, you'd think that a country that makes the kiwi it's national bird and then names themselves after that bird would have a sense of humor.
What's next? No hobbit jokes?
Thursday, July 26, 2007
A Note on Michael Vick
You all may have heard about Michael Vick's arrest for running a dog fighting ring. We normally stick to politics and religion and avoid less controversial things like sports. But this sports story is controversial to draw our attention I think.
As dog owner myself I find this story sickening. Vick and his buddies were not just breeding and fighting dogs (mostly pit bulls of course), they were torturing and killing them. I heard a story on BBC radio today that described the variety of ways Vick et al used to kill dogs that didn't fight well enough. They hanged them, beat them to death, shot them, drowned them and soaked then electrocuted them. About the only thing they didn't seem to think of to kill their dogs was to use some sort of humane euthanasia. That they used a variety of means suggests to me that killing the dogs was part of the sick "fun" they were having.
I hope Vick's career is ruined. I hope his money evaporates and he is reduced to a life of misery and shame.
It is also alarming that some high profile NFL stars have come out to say that "in some social circles" this sort of thing is OK (it's not, it's not only a cruel activity, it's a violation of federal law). I forget who said it but I heard on the radio one player compare dog fighting fans to fans of dog shows saying something along the lines of "some people like to dress their dogs up with bows and hats and some people like to see who's dog is the toughest."
That this bloody and cruel past time is also thoroughly enmeshed with gambling makes this a potential bombshell for the NFL and pro sports in general.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Oversight and the Constitution
Two Bush administration officials, the current chief of staff (Josh Bolton) and the former White House counsel (Harriet Meiers) with contempt of Congress because they refuse to testify in an oversight hearing looking into the firings of the US Attorneys General.
Republicans in Congress opposed this move saying that it would only end with Bush winning and then all future Presidents would be able to do what ever they wanted regardless of any checks by Congress. I'm curious - how "do what ever they want regardless of any checks" would differ from what Bush is doing now?
While CNN's more populist personalities are criticizing Democrats for not doing anything, this is probably the most important thing that they could do. The actual firings are incidental. What is important is that Congress assert its authority as a co-equal branch of government with Constitutionally mandated responsibility for oversight and the authority to act on that responsibility.
This is a mundane sounding fight that most Americans will be easily convinced is mere partisanship. However, it is probably going to develop into the most important constitutional crisis since Watergate. If Congress can successfully reassert its oversight authority, it will apply to a whole range of Bush abuses of power.
The First of All Liberties
Today's New York Times headlines include this plainspoken one: G.O.P. Leaders Fight Expansion of Children’s Health Insurance. The Republican leadership is determined to prevent even modest steps to insure five million additional uninsured children... but it seems their members may be breaking ranks. The Senate committee voted 17-4 in favor of the proposal to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 Billion over five years.
You may consider this post a follow-up to USWest's "Sicko" post. Our broken health care system is the biggest crisis facing America today. More than 1 in 6 lack year-round health insurance, and at least 18,000 Americans die every year from lack of health care insurance. The deaths from inadequate care for the millions who have some form of coverage is far higher. Isn't it time we dealt with other threats than just terrorism?
But the Republicans just don't seem to care--all they want is to protect their rich corporate clients and cut taxes for their supporters. In a taste of the battles to come if the Democrats prevail in 2008, Minority Leader Boehner scoffed at the Senate plan as "Hillary Care," even though the plans bear no relation to each other. It appears that the Republican Party is once again adopting a scorched-earth policy against any kind of health care reform just as they did in 1992-93. As a nation, we can't afford to let them win again.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The Future of Religion
Last year, I heard an episode of This American Life (#311: "A Better Mousetrap") that still fascinates me. In Act III of the show ("What would fill-in-the-blank do?") a reporter (Brett Marlin) told how he had used focus groups to try to invent a new, modern religion specifically for Americans who are disaffected with traditional religions.
For a church, the focus group wished for an open space with flowers, individual napping spots, pleasant smells, pond and waterfalls, perhaps puppies wandering around, maybe some nice plasma TVs with soothing images. For priests, they wanted men and women in simple robes walking around, mingling with the parishioners, answering questions politely, and generally being good listeners. It was something akin to a spa, staffed by polite salespeople and uncredentialed therapists. For music, they liked new-age, meditative music--not hymns or choirs.
As for what the beliefs of their new religion would be... Well, nobody clamored for a new holy book; none of them were interested in moralizing, beyond the general notion of some kind of cosmic karma; they did not desire any particular rituals; and they were not particularly curious about the afterlife except that none of them really liked of a "hell." They were not really interested in getting "answers" or "truth" at all. It seems that all they really wanted was a religion that would make them feel good and gently encourage them to do good in their daily lives. (Not surprisingly for such a group, the idea of a "god" was nowhere in sight.)
The catch, of course, is that people often do not know what they truly want--and they understand even less what it is they truly need. A Burke Williams Monastery is not the future of religion, but it may illustrate the needs of the flock. Perhaps more than ever in this age, people need help, hope, and someone to talk to. And so I wonder if the future of religion in America is not conservative megachurches, but liberal micro-ministries. Just a thought.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Reflections on the Latin Mass
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI took a step back from the post-Vatican-II world by authorizing priests to say the Latin Mass whenever they wish. Previously, the vernacular was required except by special dispensation of the bishop. With priests struggling to make church relevant for modern parishioners, it is hard to imagine any great clamor among them for turning the mass into a ritual both longer and incomprehensible to all but a very few parishioners. Full disclosure: I am not a Roman Catholic; I belong to the American branch of the Church of England (the Episcopal Church), which decided nearly five centuries ago that it was wrong to hold public ritual in "a tongue not understanded of the people."
Still, the creeping return of the Latin Mass has relevance for the wider world, which is why I blog about it. The issue is not, by the way, that Latin is a "dead tongue." I read Latin with minimal proficiency and certainly appreciate it. I have no revulsion to Latin. Indeed, the Latin language is not inherently conservative or even catholic. It was the language of the Renaissance and much of the Reformation. It was the language in which Newton wrote. It was the medium through which American founders learned of the history of the Roman republic that so influenced them (the Federalist papers are signed "Publius", after all).
The problem is that the Latin Mass is a symbol of conservatism. It is a victory for those who equate modernity and progress with decay and disease. Clinging to the Latin rite a core mark of identity for church conservatives. And I mean conservatives: those who supported monarchy, opposed democracy and "modernism," worked hard to ban books, preached anti-semitism, and openly sought the of Papal rule over Italy. I'm not talking about the distant past here, crusades and inquisition. No, I'm talking about the very real anti-democratic nature of the Roman church of the 1920 and 1930s.
Make no mistake about it, Benedict is giving these people the nod. It's scary.
The inward focus is alarming. This turning inward and backward parallels the developments in Islam calling for a return to the Caliphate.
Most of all, the Latin Mass is a rebuke to the enlightenment. It represents mystery, secrecy, elitism, obedience, and a distrust of reason. Thomas Mann famously decried fascism as the true rebuke of the enlightenment. I see this at work here.
Turning to the Latin Mass is a statement of just how far unhinged the Western World has become since the fall of communism. During the post-WWII period, with the defeat of fascism, the West lined up (in fits and starts) behind liberalism, with a small "l." The end of imperialism and embrace of liberal democracy in Europe was part of this. I fear we have lost our moorings. In 1989, Liberal Democracy seemed to be the Wave of the Future, even the End of History.
The Right has returned with a vengeance. In the USA, biblical literalism and right-wing theology are everywhere on the rise, creating parallel institutions to the mainstream liberal democracy. Even seizing a political party, the GOP. Pronouncements about "Islamofascism" are not so far off the mark in describing the anti-liberal nature of the movements sweeping the Islamic world, except that the charges are made by those who share the underlying distrust of democracy and liberalism. Republicans today are generally older white males who believe that democratic processes, open deliberation, and "civil rights" mostly get in the way of our security.
So, when Hillary Clinton describes Bush as "the most radical President in history" she is not lying. Starting with being the first president to take office since the 19th century without winning a majority of the popular vote, Bush has paid lip service to democracy while tearing at the roots of post-WWII liberal constitutionalism. Make no mistake about it: we are having serious debates in this country about the fundamental nature of the US constitution for the first time since the 1930s.
The good news is that the majority of the American people are not moving in that direction. Commitment to racial and gender equality is gradually increasing over time, as this year's field of Democratic candidates attests. Even gay marriage, totally unthinkable 20 years ago, is now supported by nearly a third of the country, and that support is growing. The awakening of the right need not be a catastrophe, but the strong center needs to start asserting itself again, awaking from a long political slumber.
Rident stolidi verba latina (Ovid).
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Two things
1. I don't think that Ben Nelson is anyone's favorite senator here. He is a Democrat, but only jut barely. And his interview with Stephen Colbert reaffirms that -- he is against timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, leaning more on the "let's hope the President changes his mind" plan. But still, check out the video at C&L. While Nelson disagrees with the Democrats' policy, he doesn't take any potshots at them. Instead, he actually takes a few (mild) shots at the president. So I guess what I'm saying is that I'd MUCH rather have a Ben Nelson in the Senate than a Joe Lieberman. Check out the video, leave your thoughts in the comments.
Also, Colbert tries to make the following point: if you fund the war, the President can do whatever he wants with the money; he's the commander-guy. The only way to stop the war is by de-funding it.
2. If Oprah throws all her weight (not a fat joke) behind a Barack Obama candidacy, watch out. What percentage of the female vote would he get? 80%?