A graph to be proud of....

Hell, at least we beat Turkey.

The future of reading

This New Yorker piece by Caleb Crain looks at the past, present and future of reading, including some interesting observations of the effect of reading upon cognitive development, thinking patterns, etc. Although it wanders around a bit, it is well worth reading.

Buried amidst the other facts and figures of this piece is a reference to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Among other things, this study concluded that only 13% of American adults studied were "proficient" at reading prose, which included being able to perform the following "sample tasks"

-comparing viewpoints in two editorials
-interpreting a table about blood pressure, age, and physical activity
-computing and comparing the cost per ounce of food items

(see actual study here).

So let's get down to brass tacks. We're not talking about complex linear equations or distilling Dante or speaking six languages. We're talking about being able to read two editorials and compare/contrast the viewpoints presented. And apparently only a little better than one in ten Americans can do this. One in ten.

This explains a bit doesn't it? We gnash our teeth when we elect dolts, wingnuts and imbeciles, when we reject fact-based claims of reality in favor of fantastic superstitions, etc. etc. But if it's true that only in 1 in 10 of can compared two editorials, what on earth can we expect? After learning this I half expect to see Beavis and Butthead elected as governors in the near future...

Dopes for Palin

Wow...this has to be one of the most awful political ads I've seen in some time. Get a load of the dopes they tracked down to "thank" Palin for her "articulate advocacy" during the campaign (including what appears to be a Mississippi sharecropper). Thank YOU Sarah Palin!

I.O.U.S.A.: the staggering US debt

This is quite the shocking film about the US economy and the exploding US national debt, what Reuters characterized as "[t]o the U.S. economy what 'An Inconvenient Truth' was to the environment.'"

One thing it does so well is to use animated graphs and charts to illustrate the numbers when we start talking about billions and trillions of dollars. It also places these figures within an historical context (current indebtedness compared to during the Civil War, New Deal, etc.).

Below is the condensed 30-minute version; the full-length film is currently showing in theaters nationwide and is available via Netflix, etc.

"This is neat"...

Indeed...This is rich on so many levels. I think PF has finally found something Palin truly excels in....presiding over a turkey farm. Note her incisive description of what she is accomplishing in Alaska state government...

We are the asteroid

A sobering discussion of how human-induced global warming could trigger a non-linear cascade of environmental catastrophe similar to an earlier major extinction.

Cavett on Palin

Why not take a few more shots at this Alaskan fish in a barrel:

It’s admittedly a rare gift to produce a paragraph in which whole clumps of words could be removed without noticeably affecting the sense, if any.

Read and enjoy :)

Exulting in complexity...

...a victory for ideas indeed (Nicholas Kristof NYT opinion piece)...

Homer tries to vote for Obama

For you Simpsons fans out there...too funny...

Undecideds and the young

PF is seldom a fan of National Review's Jonah Goldberg, but he makes some good points in this recent editorial in which he rightly skewers the "virtual deification of 'undecided' voters"...

On the lighter side...

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Election thoughts...

And now for the 7 people who read this blog, PF’s random takes on Election 2008… ;)

Obama’s election is indeed historic and caught PF with a few tears in his eyes last night during Obama’s stirring speech in Grant Park. As recently as a year ago PF would be in debates about the lack of minority “progress” in this country, asking as a rhetorical question whether anyone could seriously imagine a black man as president of the United States (few could). That can no longer be part of PF’s argumentative stockpile, and that is a wonderful thing. Last night I felt about as good as I have about this country in a long, long time. Not just because of what this election represents, but thoughts of being able to open a new chapter in American relations with other nations who have waited…and waited…for us to move beyond the arrogant, ignorant and incurious Bush. I believe that better days are indeed ahead.

That said, as PF’s champagne hangover fades into the caffeinated morning, it is all too easy to forget that in a number of ways, this victory is perhaps not all that it seems. First, how good can we really feel about simply electing a nonwhite male in 2008? Is that really some kind of earth-shattering American progressivism we should be trumpeting? If so, what does that say about us and our expectations in 2008?

Second, while the effect (Obama’s election) is clearly historic, the cause is likely something far less monumental. Bush (and by extension the GOP) have put this country in an economic, military and psychological morass this country hasn’t seen since the Great Depression. History tells us (as logic and common sense would predict) that the incumbent party pays a high price for such incompetency, and McPalin represents the incumbent. PF finds it staggering and shocking that McPalin was still able convince 46% of Americans—more than 55 million of them—that they were the better choice in light of the GOP’s gross incompetence and arrogance these last 8 years.

As I’ve suggested many times before, just imagine this election if the political parties were reversed. That is, a Democrat presiding over the incompetent mess of Bush & Co. Can we even imagine an election anywhere near that close? If not, what explains the difference? The double-standard? The closest we can come in recent memory is the 1980 election, where the incumbent Carter was thrashed by Reagan. The hostage crisis at that time doesn’t have a clear parallel this year, but the economic situation this year is far, far worse. So the incompetent Dem faces an “outsider” Republican. The result? 489 electoral vote landslide (50.7% of popular vote) for Reagan carrying 44 states, compared to only 49 electoral votes (41% of popular) and only 6 states + DC for Carter. The GOP gained 12 seats from the Democrats to control the Senate for the 1^st time since 1958. In the House, the GOP gained 35 seats from the Democrats, although not enough to gain a majority.

Compared to this 1980 woodshed job, Obama’s 2008 victory appears far less compelling. When the electoral dust settles, Obama comes up with 364 electoral votes (52% of popular vote) carrying 28 states and DC, compared to 174 electoral votes (46% of popular vote) and 22 states for McCain. As for the Senate, it appears Obama’s coattails give the Democrats a gain of only 3 Senate seats for a total of 56—creating the need to peel away 4 Republicans to be filibuster-proof. The House remains unsettled as of today, but Obama could match Reagan’s 35-seat gain.

Comparing the 1980 and 2008 results, it’s hard to read the Obama victory as any watershed shift in political values to the left. That McPalin did as well as they did is still a shocker considering the present state of the US. What that will translate into as far as an “Obama mandate” has yet to be seen, but progressives shouldn’t be uncorking too many bottles just yet…

Some other random election thoughts:

· Shut up GOP with all of your talk about the “need for bipartisanship.” Go crawl into your holes for awhile, fire up your laptops and recall what Bush—the self-proclaimed “uniter”—did during his 8 years at the helm. Obama will likely do much better. Not because the GOP’s divisive behavior (particularly during this election) deserves it, but because Obama is a decent and fair enough man to move beyond an “eye for an eye.” But don’t you dare go around talking about how you deserve it (this means you Adrian Smith).

· The distortions of the Electoral College continue. A 10% difference in popular vote translates into a Reagan “landslide” of 489-44 electoral votes in 1980, and this year a mere 6% popular vote difference gives Obama a “tide” of 364 to 174 electoral votes. Nebraska Governor Heineman calls Nebraska’s electoral vote-splitting system “unfair.” What’s unfair is an Electoral College system under which states like Nebraska, Wyoming and Alaska—states always whining about “rugged individualism” and the unfairness of affirmative action where someone gets an “unearned and unfair advantage”—end up getting far more political clout than their smaller populations deserve. Let’s do the math. Wyoming’s population divided by its 3 electoral votes yields a figure of 174,276 Wyoming residents per electoral vote. The same calculation gives Nebraska 354,914 residents per electoral vote. California’s population divided by its 55 electoral votes, however, gives a figure of 664,604 Californians per elector. The upshot: Torrington and Cheyenne voters are worth 3.8 times more than voters in Sacramento and Los Angeles. Scottsbluff and Gering voters are worth 1.87 times more than those California voters. By what perverted understanding of fairness and equality can you justify a system where you are worth 2, 3 or 4 times more than other Americans? How is this not the ultimate form of “elitism” and favoritism from the same people who are always decrying the same in favor of the “average person”???? We shrink back with embarrassment at the infamous 3/5 compromise, but under that arrangement the racist southern states got a far worse deal than under the modern electoral college!

· So the next time someone from a smaller state starts defending the electoral college, ask them to explain why they feel they are worth more than 2, 3 or 4 times someone in other states. Ask them why this isn’t the ultimate form of “voter welfare” or “electoral affirmative action.” If anything you’ll likely get a response about what the Framers intended, etc. Well, a couple of things can be said. First, the current electoral college system isn’t the same one as the Framers envisioned or enacted, so it isn’t at all clear that they would love the current version. Second, the Framers were fundamentally experimenters, crafting a new system of government based on the unique times in which they found themselves. The times today are fundamentally different than those of the late 1700s, and it isn’t at all clear that the Framers would change the electoral system to reflect those changed realities. Third, the Framers believed in a number of things that we no longer do, including slavery, voting rights, the income tax, direct election of senators, presidential term limits, presidential succession and voting age. The Electoral College should join them. Had the Framers believed that the constitutional structure was inviolable, they would not have set up the amendment process they did. The Electoral College should be judged purely on its merits in 2008 America, not being ruled by the “dead hand of the past.” The argument of “balancing the power of small and large states” is simply code for justifying a system in which some Americans and their votes are made to be worth 2, 3 or 4 times that of other Americans. That fundamental unfairness is understandable and tolerable when it comes to Congress, where the point is electing people who represent people from specific places and represent those interests at the national level. But the president does not share this location-representational role. S/he represents all of the people equally, and there is no reason that his/her election process shouldn’t reflect this fundamental reality.

· Oh the joy of watching Brit Hume’s face last night as if his neighbor’s Hummer had just run over his new puppy. And Tucker Carlson nearly wet himself this morning trying to keep quiet during the orgy of Obama-loving comments on the morning show.

· Shame on the nearly 2 out of 3 Nebraskans supporting the affirmative action ban. I’m no fan of using anything but a meritocracy to determine admissions, jobs, etc. But whites found absolutely no problem enjoying their own affirmative action/quota system for the last several hundred years when people of color and women were routinely excluded from all levels of society, exclusion that continues to cast a lengthy shadow over the mythical “equality of opportunity” today. Affirmative action is the necessary short-term evil to banish that shadow into the history books, and it’s a shame more Nebraska’s can’t or won’t recognize that. PS … PF looks forward to a similar ban the next election barring the influence of “legacy” (rich old parents and grandparents) on admissions, jobs, etc.—the only kind of affirmative action white people really like. “Legacy” is the anti-merit system where screwoffs like Bush and McCain “fail upwards” into fancy private schools and cushy jobs despite their below-average performance and general incompetence.

· John McCain’s concession speech was thoughtful and gracious and appeared genuine. The booing of some in the crowd only reminded us of some of the mindless dipshits amongst his supporters…a stark contrast to the silence of 100,000+ when Obama acknowledged his opponents.

· RIP Sarah Palin. If I never have to see that odd countenance of smugness and intellectual vacancy again I will be a very happy man.

· Isn’t a relief to know that the head of the ballgame now in the good old USA is sometime who actually excelled in intellectual pursuits? Who values ideas? Who appears to be intellectually curious?

· And how about the refreshing change of not having to follow the press corps out to some phony “ranch” to watch some phony modern-day “rancher” out there “clearin’ some brush…”! J

· Or how about looking forward to a few years of hearing NUCLEAR pronounced correctly!

· A sad day for my GLBT friends and everyone in America who cares about equality, as we saw bigots in CA, FL and AZ push through “marriage amendments” to deny people basic civil rights. What an irony on the day when we elect a non-white to office. That said, the fact that such measures are even on the ballot is something that few of us would have even imagined 10 years ago. The movement towards GLBT equality is headed in the right direction, and these shameful amendments will only slow that inevitable tide. I hope all you supporters of these propositions feel proud of what you’ve done; you’ll be making excuses for your votes 20 years from now when these measures go down in the history books right next to the Jim Crow laws.

FREE AT LAST!!!

VOTE

Abolish the Electoral College

'A good day today to reflect on why the electoral college should be replaced by direct election of the president. This is one of the better essays I've come across laying out the best arguments against this anachronism.

Racists for Obama

What the #*(&$@#?. Check out this interesting story on a real anti-Bradley effect. Racism is "flexible" apparently (or like many of our opinons, irrational and often inconsistent)...

Friedman on the Bush legacy

I think Tom Friedman has nailed it again. While Bush will certainly be noted for cowboy/testosterone-based understanding of executive power and foreign policy, it may well be his mortgaging the future that casts the longest shadow. As Friedman writes:

We are all going to have to pay, because this meltdown comes in the context of what has been “perhaps the greatest wealth transfer since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917,” says Michael Mandelbaum, author of “Democracy’s Good Name.” “It is not a wealth transfer from rich to poor that the Bush administration will be remembered for. It is a wealth transfer from the future to the present.”

Never has one generation spent so much of its children’s wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it as in the Bush years. Under George W. Bush, America has foisted onto future generations a huge financial burden to finance our current tax cuts, wars and now bailouts. Just paying off those debts will require significant sacrifices. But when you add the destruction of wealth that has taken place in the last two months in the markets, and the need for more bailouts, you understand why this is not going to be a painless recovery.

Krugman on post-election GOP

Paul Krugman offers his take on the trajectory of the GOP following its likely thrashing tomorrow, arguing that "the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat."