WTF?

Do either of the major political parties have any clear direction right now? The Democraps can't seem to do anything except act like the government will save us from, well, everything, and the Republicants are trying to dance somewhere between "Rush is Right" and "Democrats are Wrong."

Lyin' and Cheatin' Midwest'ners

So, Rod Blogojovichmuskanuwazzisnameagin' has been accused of a corruption. This proves the Illinois political machine is the worst oiled int eh country, yes? Well, sort of. Chicago is historically a hotbed of trouble. It's hard to get somewhere in IL without involving Chicago, and to do that means rubbing shoulders with some freaky business. But I was a little surprised at this article. So I had to read it. I mean, seriously, those cattle traders need to be watched, yes?

It turns out that the situation is probably more flash and sparkle from USA Today, who did the analysis, than anything actually newsworthy. North Dakota is not, as the headline implies, the most corrupt state. It does top the particular analysis of corruption, however, so no lie has been made. The analysis that it tops? Take the number of federal convictions for corruption during ten years and divide by the state population. Um... okay? First off, even though some factor is being divided by a population, it's not being divided by the right population. What percentage of the people in the state could be involved in corruption? Theoretically everyone, but in practice no state is that pure of a democracy. Second off, federal laws are not the only laws that could be enacted against corruption.

A better measure for the first point, why not consider what percentage of the population is involved in government? Here are a few states

WY 11,810
SD 12,150
VT 13,682
ND 14,597
MT 17,013
RI 18,511
DE 22,810
AK 23,647
LA 77,597
IL 105,471
MI 118,667
OH 119,147
PA 141,478
FL 171,342
NY 236,719
TX 259,578
CA 334,432

Now, what is the ratio of state government employees to population in those states?

WY 2.259%
SD 1.526%
VT 2.202%
ND 2.282%
MT 1.776%
RI 1.750%
DE 2.638%
AK 3.460%
LA 1.801%
IL 0.821%
MI 1.178%
OH 1.039%
PA 1.138%
FL 0.939%
NY 1.227%
TX 1.086%
CA 0.915%

(Note that I cheated a little. I used November 2008 employment with 2007 populations. But my main point lies in the first digit or two of the percentage, which won't change much.)

Notice anything about those states? The smallest states by population (1,000,000 or so and under) have about twice as many state employees as the largest states by population (about 10,000,000 and over). This is an estimate for the amount of government in the state, and is probably related to the amount of people likely to be involved in corruption. True, it misses local and federal employees. Those should to be factored in as well, along with convictions on non-federal charges.

But seeing that small states have bigger governments, loosely speaking, raises a question. If we divide convictions on corruption by relative size of government, would states like North Dakota still be on top of the heap? In other words, if we took the number of corruption cases divided by the number of people in position to be corrupt, would the numbers line up the same way as when convictions are divided by population? My guess is no. States like Illinois would probably be higher. Disagree? Then why is a state like Louisiana, which the article mentions as pretty darn corrupt, conveniently located with a government to population ratio close to the smaller states?

If anyone has time to kill, a more detailed analysis (including all government employees, not just state; doign all states; etc.) would be fun to see. Of course states like Illinois and New York would probably end up on top, so in the end it woudln't be news.

How Can Anyone Vote For

A ticket where the vice president wants to use Alaska's energy resource to make America energy independent? What the heck? I mean, we use a quarter of the world's oil, and how much of it's coal? What are we going to do after we use the 3% of the world's oil that's in Alaska? And then the however much it is of the world's natural gas? Are we going to burn down the southern forests, then kill all the seals and squeeze their oils into our gas tanks?

Ugh!

Ben Stein's Gone

In an attempt to put up a conservative of interest, I put up a link to Ben Stein's pages. I've removed it.

My trouble stems from an interview on a Christian TV network that covered, in part, the so-called movie Expelled. (Go to April 21 and find Ben.) I was going to let him get away with that one before I heard about the interview. At one point in the interview, Ben Stein says

When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [a scientist interviewed in the "movie"], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed. ... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

This isn't about politics, it's about a complete lack of connection to reality. Minimally, I expect everyone but politicians to have one. If he were kidding about this, I would be amused... as long as everyone knew it was a joke. I can't see how this is a joke, and my sense of humor is as obtuse as the come.

I'll put Ben back up as a person of interest when he runs for a public office that deserves this crap.

Lincoln, Douglas, Clinton, Obama

Barak Obama pointed out that the debates are about trivia rather than real issues. Ed Rendell said the same thing while stumping for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton offered a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Obama has declined, at least for this month. I have some thoughts on this.

Obama said he would rather talk to voters. A debate, especially one where you and your opponent set the rules, can be talking to voters, in my opinion. What I'm not sure about is whether Americans really have enough civil knowledge to understand what they would hear. Think about it. All this trivia and garbage that's been "debated" is something people really do watch. I doubt that the average person realizes there is a problem and is watching with a never-ending hope of finding something of substance. If they have noticed a problem they've either shut down or done something like contribute to a rather whimsical and barely read political blog.

One side of me would be happy to watch such a debate no matter what the level of apathy the general public has. I always remind myself, though, that old style debate simply brings back old style misguided decision making. We complain now about how candidates now need to look good on TV and such rather than having substance. In 1858 a candidate needed to debate well. Nothing against Mr. Lincoln, who I am glad was elected, but debate ability does not define substance and capability no matter how much our romantic sides would like to think otherwise. I know very intelligent people who are introverted and whose best thoughts come only after long periods of thinking. They look like bad leaders, their low confidence from bad experiences makes them feel like bad leaders, and yet they go on to do wonderful things of you throw the job on them anyway and encourage them.

On top of that, I don't think that Americans, regardless of their understanding of government, can evaluate debate. Go back to my friends. They "lose" debate after debate with colleagues and friends who end up making far worse decisions. Too many people in our culture think that the last word wins. In my experience the last word just as often shows the fool who won't shut up.

So I'm conflicted. Old news.

A Few Bits

I think that anyone with more than a third of a brain and who has paid any attention to the presidential campaigns will appreciate this wonderful little piece titled Wake me in October.

In other news, Ron Paul received something like 30 percent of the Republican votes in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. When I was up there the Friday before the election, there were radio ads brought to us by [name of citizen] and people on the street who really thought that Paul would win the Republican nomination and go on the be the next President. Barak Obama should get his head of of Hyde Park and carefully consider whether people like this can even be bitter. I, for one, know that I trust them with guns.

The New York Times (Late Edition) last Wednesday had a one page photo spread of Pennsylvania polling places. The largest picture? Danielsville, PA. I liked the dead animal heads on the walls.

The 2004 Recap

or: "Hindsight has an Astigmatism, Too"

I don't know which I would be happier having now, someone who says absolutely stupid things like this or someone who takes so long to say anything that he often manages to say it and not say it.

Um... Logic?

Hillary Clinton says

"It's about picking a president who relies not just on words, but on work, hard work, to get America back to work," Clinton said at a labor rally here. "Someone who's not just in the speeches business."

Okay, let's do some formal logic. I'm going to do this sloppily and not state my assumptions, but it's all valid.

Two Democratic candidates, assume we pick one. We have a disjunction! Let's call this disjunction Democrat = [Obama OR Clinton]. For now we need not care if it's an OR or an XOR, but really it is XOR because only one will win the nomination. Using disjunction Democrat, from not Obama we can deduce Clinton. (Look up modus tollendo ponens.)

Unfortunately, I think Hillary is falling flat on this one. Why? Because her way of saying "not Obama," which I quoted above, could also be saying "not Clinton." There's nothing invalid about taking the argument in that direction, however; we can still get a valid result. For both inclusive and exclusive OR, when both arguments are false the disjunction is also false. So Democrat is false. The "spring" disjunction Democrat is one argument of the "November" disjunction [McCain OR Democrat]. With Democrat false, McCain is true.

Valid conclusion-- Clinton wants us to vote for McCain.

Of course, now that we know it's valid, we need to know if it's sound. (I made two mistakes that can ruin the soundness. Have fun finding them!)

[Nate back to add: And people told me that a semester of logic in the philosophy department at college would never be good for anything! Ha! Second best electives I ever took, after Coaching Football.]

Spin the Delegate Bottle

This article was fascinating. It talks about the different ways to spin different outcomes today. Go forth and learn.

Officially Meaningless

This is the Liberal/Conservative FAQ for the Thinking Person

Q: How can you make politics not only easy news but also completely meaningless?
A: Use a univariate liberal/conservative scale to assess even the most complex of things.

Q: How do you use this scale to your own ends?
A: Accuse others of being whatever the dumb people you're trying to woo think is evil.

Q: So what is a liberal?
A: Whatever self professed conservatives call evil.

Q: And what is a conservative?
A: Whatever self professed liberals call evil.

Q: Is there an overlap?
A: Yes, only due to the inanity of it.

Q: Is this crap unique to politics?
A: No. A similar thing happens as when a New Englander tells a Southerner that Maryland is in The South, or a Southerner tells a New Englander that Maryland is in The North. Even Marylanders can't get a grip on the idea of The Geographical Middle, and geography, unlike politics, actually has only one north-south direction.

Q: So, who wins from this?
A: Those who stay the course, unless you're a liberal.

Q: And who wins if you're liberal?
A: Those who bring about a time of change strangely reminiscent of the time before change.

Q: Does it matter that this sort of thing means nothing because it is to simplified?
A: Yes, because people think it has meaning. Social reality is, for better or worse, reality.

Q: Should we move to Canada over it?
A: No, they do the same fricking thing there. Hosers.

Fred's Out

Yep. Fred's out. I guess the race just got that much more cheery.

Coburn: My Man

A while back, Peter posted an article that centered on Tom Coburn, Republican senator from Oklahoma and overall Eeyore figure in government. Coburn showed up in the senate and has since pissed off a lot of people because when he sees a problem he just opens his mouth and says "You are screwed up." This leads to a lot of responses like "Do you know who you're talking to?" to which he replies "Yes, and you're screwed up." (I'm putting words into his mouth, for the sake of getting across his point.) The best part is that I love this guy for it. A socially conservative economically libertarian straight shooter who is actually intelligent. What more could I get? His main target is budget earmarks, which he thinks are ridiculous. For more, here's an article you can read.

Reading this set of blurbs, I came across this little bit

Sen. Coburn is drafting amendments to kill earmarks to the Transportation appropriations bill, with the funds transferred to repairing rotting structures. That asks senators whether, in the wake of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota, they insist on keeping pork for their districts.

Exactly as it should be. Who needs a fracking bridge to nowhere in Alaska when the money could be used to, say, fix the Tappan Zee?

On one hand, we need a president like this guy. On the other hand, the senate needs some kind of common sense. Unfortunately, the fact that he probably won't last in office by being so sensible isn't in either of my hands. Or maybe the Okies are smarter than I thought.

PETA Sucks

Really, they do. Seriously, what's up with this?

Animal loving-- okay. Special interest grudge holding smear campaigning-- priceless.

Straight Talk on Immigration

Lou Dobbs is happy to share his thoughts on Bush, rhetoric, and illegal immigrants. I'll update this post later with a few quotes.

Kucinich Makes The Move

I found this bit, with handy links, at Slashdot.

I don't expect it to get anywhere, but hey, it's a good gesture. And the guy is smart-- he knows where the real power is.