Apparently, George Will Didn't Learn Math at Princeton

In an effort to be continually informed, I spend many-a-morning (well, early afternoon) reading the paper as I eat my Old Man Cereal. I like to start things off by reading the Op-Ed page, and do so for a variety of reasons: as a Government junkie, I'm obsessed with learning how people respond to the news, and I always want to see what arguments are currently being used by the various pundits. This is especially true of those who are to the right on the political spectrum, with the logic being that it is always a good idea to see what it is your opponents are up to. So, at the risk of killing my blood pressure, I always take time to read the likes of, among others, Charles Krauthammer, Debra Saunders, and George Will.

Now George Will is a columnist I generally respect, even if it is very rare that I agree with him (at all). He has a very consistent philosophy to which he adheres, and his arguments are what I like to term, "not-retarded". However, in his latest editorial, Will failed to live up to that standard.



Overall, the editorial is rather scattershot in its aims--trying at different times to show that despite Obama's attempts to the contrary, that it's still politics at usual, that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by selecting Hillary, and that early-voting is an abomination. It's this last part that had my eyes rolling. Check out this description of the problem as Will sees it:

In many states, voting extends over weeks, beginning before campaigns reach their informative crescendos. This plague has been encouraged by people, often Democrats, who insist, without much supporting evidence, that it increases voter turnout, especially among minorities and workers for whom the challenge of getting to polling places on a particular day is supposedly too burdensome. (emphasis added)

I like the fact that George Will, after 8 years of hearing about the great fuckup that is voting in a great portion of the country, has decided that no such problems exist. He has never heard of ridiculously large lines at the polling stations, or ballots running out, and so on. He also cannot possibly imagine that it may be inconvenient for someone, with say, A JOB, might not be able to make it to the voting booth that day. Not everyone can take that "one-hour lunch break" to make that trip to cast a vote, but that's an America with which George Will apparently has not had contact.

But the most galling aspect of the editorial is the conclusion that Will makes that because of "early voting", the Dems have doomed themselves to choosing Hillary over Obama. He notes how in California, there were thousands of votes that went to the also-ran John Edwards. If we follow his argument, we assume that if Obama received every one of those Edwards votes (highly unlikely, but still, keep following), that he would have won.



Um, George? Check the math. Hillary won 52% of the vote. That's called a majority. If we added the total Edwards votes to Obama's total, he still would have lost. In fact, if this addition were somehow able to combine to a GREATER number than 52%, I'd get the hell out of Dodge, because the laws of the Universe were clearly being messed with, and we could expect its imminent collapse any minute now.


This argument also assumes of course that the people who cast their votes early in the process were NOT the ones that had already made a firm decision months ago, and would probably change their mind as Election Day neared. While it is easy to make this assumption, I still like my theory that George Will needs to go back to school and get a textbook that covers basic arithmetic.

The Something Something of 2007!

A count down or something.

2007 was full of ups and downs. It was a roller coaster ride that brought us to this beautiful, rainy and occasionally snowy year of 2008. Anything can happen now, what with round numbers and all (and the numbers really are ROUND! Look at them!). But let's not dwell on the future; let's take a look at what was and can never be changed.



It's common knowledge that the WDR crew has a horrible habit of watching those VH1 shows about decades past (and occasionally those about weeks past, too). We do this to cope with the fact that the present sucks, and things are SOOOOO much better in retrospect.

So what was so great about 2007? What were the worst parts? Well, I'm not sure how to say this, but the following list isn't a best or worst of; it's just a list of crap that I came up with ... right now.

Oh, and there will be 14 items on the list. Because I said so.

WDR's First Annual Countdown or Something

14.) Lesbians!

This year, Jodie Foster grabbed the media spotlight not for her acting or some sort of political ramblings, but because of her sexuality. She is in a relationship with a woman. Let it sink in.

So, I didn't initially know why this was a big deal. In the words of Tourette's Guy, "That just means she likes what I like!" But upon further scrutiny, I realized what it was. You see, there was a point in time when Jodie Foster was "Kill the President Hot." This was a time when one extremely deranged guy thought that Jodie Foster would love him if he killed the president. Now, this woman is dating another woman? Dios Mio!

Yes, some other post should be done on this, but right now I'm getting tired of talking about this and I still have 13 more things to count down.

13.) The Rise and Fall of the Ducks

This year, we in Eugene saw our Ducks (and star Dennis Dixon) rise above all others, only to lose it all to fucking Arizona. Seriously. Wow.

The worst part was the Dennis Dixon Heisman situation, which if you recall, even I was skeptical about. Still, when it came down to it, Dixon was the front runner and would have taken the trophy if he hadn't been injured. But he was, and it sucked. Game over.

12.) Radiohead's "In Rainbows"

This has been the talk of so many other people/lists, that I'm not really going to get into it. But let me just say this: When are we going to get the second disc?

11.) The Return of Rage

Rage Against the Machine came back, we drove all the way to Berdo to see 'em and it was all worth it. Even with the heat and hundreds of retarded fans (who burns plastic bottles?) the show remains amazing.

10.) The Ducks Win the PAC 10 Championship Game

I added this mostly because it happened on my birthday and USC kids cried. Best birthday gift, guys!

9.) Britney Spears' Children Are Frightening

I know, who wants to hear crap about Britney Spears? No one (I wish). But the fact is that I've had to see her damned face and her kids on magazines at the grocery store and this issue has not been brought to light. THESE KIDS LOOK CREEPY. Then again, look where they came from.

8.) The Rice Burger Flavor Sensation!

OK, so Jonathan Stewart made this crazy burger with rice and salsa on it, and it was pretty good. Happy Cinco De Mayo!

7.) I'm Running Out of Things to Write

I'm just gonna skip this one.

6.) ELECTION TIME!

So 2008 is the actual election time, but we've been getting all sorts of shit about the election since the beginning of 2007 (or at least that's when I noticed it). I haven't really paid much attention to it because it's a little while off, and eventually I won't be able to get away from it. It's kind of like Christmas, but without religious barrier or any time constraints. It's balls-out MADNESS.

5.) INTERPOL!

New album from Interpol that was awesome (in fact, I listened to some of it today). My pick for new summer album.

4.) Queens of the Stone Age

I love these guys, but the latest album wasn't as good as I thought it would be. Sure, My expectations were high, but usually these guys meet them. Still, it was nice to get an album version of "I Wanna Make it Wit Chu," even though it's at a slower tempo than the live version I'm used to. But it did have a cool video.

3.) Superbad

If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.

2.) Eastern Promises

If you've seen it, you know what I'm taking about.

1.) The Most Horrible Thing My Eyes Have Seen This Year (courtesy of my roommate)


And no, it wasn't the picture above (not sure what so horrible about it, but Google found it...).

No, it was "Two Girls, One Cup" was horribly disturbing and awful. I'm not even going to link it here, so if someone else wants to force that upon you, they'll have to link it themselves (I'm looking at you, Joe). Seriously, this is fucked up shit. It even made Loveline's Dr. Drew feel queasy. I don't want to think about it any more. Just picture the worst thing you've seen, and it will be close.

_______________________

So there you have it: What a year! Let's just hope that 2008 makes things crazy again. I know it will.

ASEVoIS: Iran (So Far Away)

News is coming in at a fast and furious speed these days, from the ongoing events of the campaign trail to continuing developments as Russia undergoes a power "transition". But the story that had the attention of most people was the revelation in the most recent NIE that Iran had put a stop to their covert weapons program. Surely this would stop the ever-loudening drumbeat for war. I mean, if you eliminate the reason for it, you can't follow through, right? Right?!?!?



Apparently not, according to some politicos. The popular editorial cartoon take on this news is to ask "What to Believe?", and present some comparison scenario between this recent turn of events and that of 2003, when we were told that Iraq had WMDs. Note the added emphasis of mine to contrast the supposed comparison. That difference is paramount to understanding the two situations. The standard line is that since the intelligence was wrong before, what can we trust? Well, for one, to chalk up the failures of the Iraq War to mere "bad intelligence" is simply foolhardy. The problem was not necessarily getting bad information (which did indeed occur), but that information was cherry-picked to try to support a predetermined conclusion (which itself was based on poor assumptions). Since the push by this administration has been for war with Iran, publishing an intelligence report which refutes that conclusion presents an entirely different situation. Making the comparison is then just lazy.

But this willful ignorance is as great a sin as the outright spin-and-deny from the Hawks on this issue. You can find editorials from the likes of people like John Bolton which attempt to put the kibosh on the entire finding, arguing such things that there was no diplomacy involved with Iran (only the war with Iraq has put any pressure) and that should conflate civilian and military technology, without considering that it's probably pretty easy to monitor civilian uses of the technology. But there was error that was particularly egregious, and that was his contention that "the NIE suffers from a common problem in government: the overvaluation of the most recent piece of data." This just makes me laugh, because the exact opposite problem was what led to the mistaken invasion of Iraq--because of "anchoring", we refused to reconsider our assumptions as new information was gathered that challenged our assumption that Iraq had a functioning weapons program. If anything, what Bolton states usually does NOT occur, and shows that a better decision-making skills are taking place.



The funniest part of the backlash by the hawks to this report is their attempt to explain the reasoning behind this sudden change in outlook. There was one feature Op-Ed in The Oregonian which asserted that Bush was trying to wash his hands of the Iran "problem", and was passing the buck to the next administration. This is of course totally in line with the thinking of this administration, which has pushed for war at every opportunity, and warned of a potential WWIII just last week would suddenly change course. We have seven years of evidence that definitively prove otherwise.

Now I'm not saying that everything is totally safe with Iran. As always, it's best to proceed with caution, and to always keep an eye on the situation. That's why we continue to try to obtain intelligence. But we can't repeat the same mistakes that we committed in the past. We can't assume that a regime is "just crazy", and fail to consider the simple cost/benefit analysis that other regimes go through. Iran is in some ways calling plays from the same playbook as Iraq, what with their resistance to international efforts in their powerplay to assert themselves as the regional hegemon. We have to remember that these people still understand cost/benefit analysis and balance-of-power reasoning, and that their decisions are not irrational.



Just don't expect to start a war with even less evidence than you had before.

ASEVoIS--The Riveting World of Governmental Processes

Yesterday I was reading this commentary on the nature of the primary system here in the US, and it got me to thinking. And thinking leads to bad things, like not-studying for LSATS and to ridiculous blog posts. No thinking for me--as my parents told me, "Lord loves a working man, and don't trust whitey".

Now that I assume that you've actually clicked the above link to see what the article proposed, I can make my point without going through a pointless introduction. The idea of a national primary seems like a good idea on its face (for the LatinFolk out there, that's prima facie), but is in practice not a very good idea. It's actually a retarded idea, and gives electoral reform a bad name. Seriously, electoral reform is embarrassed to be mentioned in the same paragraph as this concept.


The idea of the national primary seems to solve the idea of allowing everyone a voice to participate in the nominating process. However, the opposite effect would in fact occur, as the focus of the campaigns would then revolve solely around the delegate-rich states (NY and Cali for the Dems, Texas for the Reps), and leaving smaller states with no attention. Minorities would also get the shaft--there's a reason why South Carolina and Nevada have primaries at the beginning of the schedule, and that's so their issues would get heard.

Which leads to my point that the current process serves as a good representative of the overlooked states. Iowa represents the Midwest (derisively referred to as "flyover country), while New Hampshire covers small-town America. As veterans of the political process, these states are also filled with savvy voters, who are used to poring over candidates and studying the issues instead of just regurgitating force-fed infocrap from the national networks.


The other benefit of having these small states early in the process is that it allows more non-mainstream candidates to have a viable campaign. These are small media markets, so it doesn't take a massive warchest to be able to just stay afloat in the polls in these states. Instead of relying solely on name-recognition and media pimping, campaigns have to be more candid with their answers and more engaged in the actual process. This is why you can have Hildog leading polls nationally, but not doing as well in the early states--the voters in these early states have gotten a more in-depth look at each of these candidates instead of relying on broad assumptions. This may especially work in favor of Democrats, because Hillary would be the absolute worst candidate for the party to nominate (based on the potential of the Republican Attack Machine and her ability to rally the base to support the GOP).

Small states also benefit from personal attention. What is especially true in New Hampshire is that candidates have the opportunity to visit with virtually every eligible voter, and listen to his/her concerns and open themselves up to their questions. This is in direct contrast to the large stump speeches that one would find in the large metropolitan cities that you would otherwise have. As a result, you have an overall more connective democratic experience.

Sorry to bore you with this stuff--when you take a few Comparative Politics classes, the nature of how different forms of government works gets in your head ( "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work"). But feel free to call me an asshat in the comments.