Magpie

Saturday, August 5, 2006

No comment.

A neighborhood in Beirut, before and after.

Before and after photos of Beirut

Of course, everyone who died there was a terrorist, right?
[Images: GeoEye]

Via Juan Cole, who has a short comment worth reading here.

Update: The original source of the photos is here. (Hat tip to This Modern World.)

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:34 PM | Get permalink

Screw the poor. And everyone else.

Earlier this week, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life put out the results of a survey on how people in the US view a range of pressing social issues. Despite the claims of right-wing politicos and religious conservatives, the study found that people aren't easy to categorize in terms of being liberal or conservative on these issues.

The public's point of view varies from issue to issue. They are conservative in opposing gay marriage and gay adoption, liberal in favoring embryonic stem cell research and a little of both on abortion. Along with favoring no clear ideological approach to most social issues, the public expresses a desire for a middle ground on the most divisive social concern of the day: abortion.

Together, the results of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life suggest that the public remains reluctant to move too far from current policies and practices on many key social policy questions. Despite talk of "culture wars" and the high visibility of activist groups on both sides of the cultural divide, there has been no polarization of the public into liberal and conservative camps.

The results of the survey are interesting in and of themselves. And, I think, should have fairly obvious implications for electoral politics.

But the most interesting comment I've seen on the survey is this one from Mark Graber at Balkinization:

What this study suggests is that American politics, always dominated by elites, is increasingly being dominated by elites with no sense of social obligation. Unlike previous Republican country-club elites (see Kennedy, O'Connor, even Souter), core Republicans feel little or no empathy with persons of color, with the poor, with the environment, or with anyone or anything else. Figuring out what is motivating them is difficult, but may I suggest that what holds the new class together is a sense of victimization. Despite being better off than most Americans, they are personally victimized by terrorists, by crime, by affirmative action (virtually all enterprisers are white), by high taxes, by environmental regulations, by the poor, etc. Thus, rather than developing a sense that one's privileges should be shared with the less fortunate, the new elite regards themselves as the primary victims of American policy and seeks to restructure policy to end their victimhood. Not an optimistic future if these political trends continue.

The reason for the changes in US politics since the early 1990s — and especially since King George took office — make much more sense now, don't they? And, for that matter, so do the conclusions that Paul Krugman reaches in the column we talk about in the post just below this one.

By the way, you can read the full results of the Pew survey if you go here if you want to make up your own mind about what their data means.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:05 PM | Get permalink

There's nothing in the middle of the road except a yellow line and dead armadillos.

This magpie has always found a whole lot of truth in that quip from Texas populist Jim Hightower. While Paul Krugman's language isn't as folksy as Hightower's, Krugman's latest column from (the full text of which is available here) is mainly an autopsy of all those dead armadillos.

According to Krugman, there's a big reason why the Republicans are so successful at winning elections — even when most of the public and most of the GOP's constituencies disagree with the party's policies — and why the Democrats usually can't capitalize on the fact that most Americans agree with the party's positions on most issues. That reason for the difference between how the two parties do electorally, says Krugman, is that right-wing groups know they'll do better if the GOP wins election. And, because of this, they support candidates just because they're Republicans. Democrats and progressives, on the other hand, look at how individual candidates deliver on particular issues rather than at their party affiliation. This, says Krugman, is a big problem:

Now compare [the right-wing behavior] with the behavior of advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group, both of which have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club's executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, "We choose people, not parties." And it's true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups.

But while this principle might once have made sense, it's just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party's leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee's personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the "R" after his name.

Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.

The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties — a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy — are kidding themselves.

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we're living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician's partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

In a few paragraphs, Krugman nails the reason why I've been so pissed off when the Human Rights Campaign endorses a Republican candidate simply on the basis of whether that candidate has supported lesbian and gay rights. As Krugman points out, that support doesn't mean a damn when electing one more Republican to the House or Senate means the difference to whether Congress is run by right-wing, fundamentalist homophobes or by people who believe that lesbians and gay men are actually human beings.

Via Tennessee Guerilla Women.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:21 PM | Get permalink

Friday, August 4, 2006

If it's August, it must be National Save the GOP's Butt Month.

Raw Story has obtained a copy of what appears to be the GOP's strategy document for campaigning during the August congressional recess [PDF file].

The third page pretty much tells the whole story.

The GOP's big plan for August

It's no accident that there are two weeks of 'Homeland' at the end of the month. That's so the Republicans have half the month to scare you so much with the dangers of terrorism that you'll forget that they didn't tell you shit during the 'Prosperity' week. That's if they didn't already have you terrified by the threat of rampant, godless homosexuality during 'Values' week.

In other words, the GOP will be conducting business as usual.

| | Posted by Magpie at 3:15 PM | Get permalink

Thursday, August 3, 2006

The 'liberal' US media strikes again.

This time, the culprit is National Public Radio reporter Jacqueline Froelich, who on Monday's broadcast of Morning Edition uncritically swallowed an old right-wing canard about the supposed damage suffered by children raised in lesbian and gay families.

Froelich let the assertion pass in her report on the Arkansas Supreme Court's ruling that it was unconsitutional for the state to bar lesbians and gay men fromn being foster parents. The assertion itself — that thousands of studies 'prove' that gay and lesbian families are bad for kids — came out of the mouth of GOP state senator Jim Holt. Here's the transcript:

FROELICH: But Republican state Senator Jim Holt says the courts have overstepped their jurisdiction and did not look at all the evidence.

HOLT: The judge had said there are no studies that show that the homosexual family or the environment is problematic for the child. And there are thousands of studies; actually, I've got over 10,000, here, that show just the opposite.

FROELICH: That figure, 10,000 studies, is frequently cited by children's psychologist and Christian conservative Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Senator Holt relied on that statistic and other data when he co-sponsored a failed bill seeking a ban on gay foster parents and adoption in 2005. Now he's counting on the 2007 legislature to reinstate a ban.

10,000 studies? As Media Matters points out, researchers would have had to issue a study with every day since 1979 for Holt's figure to be accurate. Instead of challenging Holt's figure, Froelich let it pass with merely a reference to its source — the well-known scientific authority James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family. (Dobson, incidentally, has never come up with sources to back up his repeated contention that these studies exist.) The failure of Froelich or her NPR editor to fact-check Holt's comment any further than linking it to Dobson's unsupported 'statistic' is pretty sloppy journalism.

What makes this sloppiness even more unforgivable is that it's not hard to find studies of lesbian and gay families that gainsay Hill and Dobson's contentions. From Media Matters again:

For example, a 2002 [American Academy of Pediatrics} Technical Report found that:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

In a July 2004 policy statement "oppos[ing] any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services," the APA asserted that "results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children." Similarly, an October 2005 WebMD article reported that according to findings presented at the October 2005 American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition, "[c]hildren growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes." In addition, a January 2005 New York Times article (subscription required) noted the assessment of Dr. Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at New York University, that "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children."

Having been a broadcast editor myself, I know that time considerations undoubtedly played a role in the failure of Froelich to challenge Hill in her report. NPR editors can be brutal in shaving a story down to fit the time available for it. But my experience also tells me that the story could have been edited like this:

HOLT: The judge had said there are no studies that show that the homosexual family or the environment is problematic for the child. And there are thousands of studies; actually, I've got over 10,000, here, that show just the opposite.

FROELICH: That figure ~~, 10,000 studies, is frequently cited by children's psychologist and Christian conservative~~ originated with Christian conservative Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, who has never provided sources for his number. Nonethless, Senator Holt relied on that statistic and other data when he co-sponsored a failed bill seeking a ban on gay foster parents and adoption in 2005. Now he's counting on the 2007 legislature to reinstate a ban.

And even though that's just a first try, right off the top of my head, it would make less than five seconds of difference to the story's running time. I'm sure that Froelich and an NPR editor could have come up with a better script with more time. Unfortunately, neither Froelich or an editor bothered to do this when prepping the story for Monday's Morning Edition.

I guess checking the facts is a bit too ideological for NPR these days. Especially when the 'facts' originate with someone who has a friend in the White House.

| | Posted by Magpie at 2:38 PM | Get permalink

Things are jumping in Portland.

We just had a small earthquake. The cats are not happy.

More: As I figured, it was a small quake fairly nearby. According to the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network, it was a magnitude 3.3 quake, centered about 12 miles north of Vancouver, Washington (which makes it 14 or 15 miles from where I'm sitting).

The quake definitely got my attention, starting out with a sharp jolt followed by a few seconds of shaking and house-rattling. But it was small enough that even the cats went back to sleep quickly.

If you're curious, a map showing the quake's the epicenter is here and more info on the quake is here.

| | Posted by Magpie at 1:46 AM | Get permalink

Getting the picture.

Below is a map of Israel's air strikes on Lebanon through 1 August, compiled by the Lebanese blog Samidoun.

Given that one of the main reasons that the Israeli government gives for its attack is cleaning out the Hezbollah threat from south Lebanon, this magpie has to wonder about why there have been attacks damn near all the way to Lebanon's northern border.

Map of Israeli air strikes on Lebanon

Go here to view a PDF version of the map that lets you zoom in to view details, or go here to see a larger JPEG image of the map.

A note to the Samidoun folks: Can I respectfully suggest that slapping the label 'Occupied Palestine' onto Israel is not a great idea? All it does is make it possible for people to attack your map because of the label without having to deal with the brutal reality of the attacks that your map shows so well.

Via Just World News.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:10 AM | Get permalink

Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Meanwhile, back in Mexico.

While much of the world's attention is on Israel's attack on Lebanon, the controversy over the results of Mexico's presidential election continues — and Mexicans still don't know who their next president will be.

Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) candidate Andres Manuel López Obrador continues to claim that he was the real victor in the election, despite the official results, and is demanding a vote-by-vote recount of the 41 million ballots cast. Obrador has also filed a 900-page complaint with Mexico's election tribunal, TRIFE, alleging extensive ballot fraud that favored 'official winner Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party (PAN). TRIFE must make a decision on Obrador's complaint by early September. If the tribunal decides in his favor, they have the power to order a new election.

Obrador has called his supporters into the streets several times since the election to back his demand for a recount. This past weekend saw over two million people answer his call in Mexico City, in the largest demonstration the country had ever seen.

Chuck Collins and Joshua Holland have an update on the Mexican election, which looks both at what may have gone wrong during the count and at how US media have covered the election controversy.

While the López Obrador campaign has not made major charges of "cyber fraud," there is an emerging controversy over the IFE's role in reporting who was ahead in the vote count. For the 2006 election, the IFE had developed a sophisticated system to provide preliminary results called the PREP. Relying on results being phoned in from a sample of precincts, the IFE could compile a credible picture of the vote. If the PREP showed one candidate with a clear majority, the system would have allowed Mexicans to go to sleep on election night knowing who their next president would be. But because of the razor close results, the PREP proved to be an inadequate measure.

Now research is emerging to suggest that the PREP results were cooked to create the appearance of a Calderón victory. Physicist Jorge López at the University of Texas, El Paso, conducted a statistical analysis of the PREP results and found that, as the results came in, the differential between the candidates' totals remained almost constant. One would expect that, as results from each party's geographic strongholds were counted, the gap between their totals would rise and would fall. In such a tight election, one would even expect the lead to change back and forth as the count progressed. None of that happened. The results of a third candidate, Roberto Madrazo of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), fluctuated as expected.

He also noted that there was very little deviation between the actual results as they came in and the average results; in a normal, natural distribution, one would expect significant differences between the two (it should look something like a squashed bell-shaped curve). Dr. López concluded the pattern was "a clear indication that the data was manufactured by an algorithm and does not stand a chance at passing as data originated at the actual voting."

Luis Mochan, a physicist at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, did similar work. He noted that the PREP data was posted after the first 10,000 reports had been processed, and looked at whether those first 10,000 reports were consistent with the statistical trends for the rest of the day. When he plotted the data backwards, Calderón's vote total originated at zero, as is normal, but López Obrador began the day 126,000 votes in the hole.

Via AlterNet.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:44 PM | Get permalink

Tuesday, August 1, 2006

Another terrorist-lover undermines the US and Israel.

This time, it's that well-known tool of Hezbollah, Jimmy Carter:

The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's regular military forces control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented. Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners....

These are ambitious hopes, but even if the U.N. Security Council adopts and implements a resolution that would lead to such an eventual solution, it will provide just another band-aid and temporary relief. Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal.

Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus. Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas, while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and that fails to bring safety or stability.

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored....

A major impediment to progress is Washington's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions. Direct engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority and the government in Damascus will be necessary if secure negotiated settlements are to be achieved. Failure to address the issues and leaders involved risks the creation of an arc of even greater instability running from Jerusalem through Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

You can read the rest of Carter's op-ed here.

Via Washington Post.

More: The headline and intro to this post are meant to be sarcastic, folks. See the comments for more.

| | Posted by Magpie at 9:19 AM | Get permalink

How cynical can the GOP get?

Congressional Republicans have turned legislation that would raise the US minimum wage to US$ 7.25 an hour into a 'poison pill' bill. If Democrats — who've been pushing for the increase for years — vote for the increase, they also have to approve a permanent end to the inheritance tax. Basically, the GOP is holding a living wage for millions of US workers hostage, to be released only if Democrats agree to give billions of dollars to just a few super-rich families. Pretty damn cynical, eh?

But as has become a common story in these years of Dubya, the Republicans weren't satisfied to stop there. Buried in the GOP's minimum wage bill is a provision that would pre-empt state laws that bar employers from paying a lower wage to tipped workers. Nathan Newman picks up the story:

The federal minimum wage is explicit that states and local governments are free to create higher minimum wage rates than the federal level for any and all groups of workers. While the federal minimum wage allows employers to pay a lower wage to tipped workers, a number of states have eliminated this so-called tip credit on the assumption that consumers pay tips not to subsidize low-wage employers but to actually reward service.

But the new House bill would preempt those state laws and actually cut wages for tipped workers in states like California, Oregon and Washington where tipped workers would see a lower minimum wage rate imposed compared to what they were guaranteed under state law.

This would be an unprecedented move by the federal government to preempt state minimum wage laws. Not only would it hurt tipped workers, it would set a precedent for conservatives to try to preempt all minimum wage rates higher than the federal level.

If that sounds too paranoid, consider this: After a number of cities began enacting city minimum wage laws, about a dozen southern and western states, including Florida, Louisiana and Georgia, passed legislation banning local governments from enforcing local minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage level. Backed by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, these "minimum wage repeal acts" are the model for the national GOP going further and preempting state minimum wage laws, just as they recently preempted state class action laws and just as they have preemped state health care and environmental regulation.

Progressives are actually winning a range of battles at the state level and conservatives are increasingly looking to use the federal government to shut those progressive state laws down. This new minimum wage cut for tipped workers is just one more shot in that attack.

In other words, the Republicans want to pay for Paris Hilton's tax cut by picking the pockets of tipped workers. And they're playing this card as part of a bigger strategy to drive down the real wages of every worker in the US.

So how cynical can the GOP get? I leave the answer to you.

Via Daily Kos.

| | Posted by Magpie at 8:51 AM | Get permalink

Monday, July 31, 2006

Ack!

I'm still on deadline at my 'real job,' so blogging is likewise still on hold. [sigh]

In the meantime, pay a visit to my pals Mary and Natasha over at Pacific Views — they always have interesting things to say. Or you can check out one of the many fine blogs listed over to the left.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:59 AM | Get permalink