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.

Words Can't Describe

Man says it would be a terrible thing to vote for McCain, but changes his mind. Make what you want of it.

Clinton In June

Okay, let me see if I understand this. Hillary Clinton thinks it's fine to stay in the race until June because of all of the past times that the nomination was not decided until June or later.

Does this make sense? No. Nominations are decided based on votes, not dates. The votes have moved earlier on the calendar in the past decade or two. So bringing up the calendar as if it is more relevant than votes is, in my opinion, dumb.

So, am I misunderstanding her, is she misunderstanding the world? And are Americans, like her supporters, really dumb enough to fall for what would be called reasoning if it wasn't so bad?

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.]

Why Is James Dobson...

my poster boy for American Christian political stupidity? Let me count the ways! Oh, wait, time is finite. Let me give you just a few, then.

Background information-- what Dobson says about politics, most evangelical Christians take seriously. He, along with the late Jerry Falwell, are two of the major reasons why Christian kids my age think that good Christians are Republicans. That's all you need to know.

My current issues? This article has one or two. (And this might be a good reference.)

Dobson released a statement Tuesday that criticized McCain for his support of embryonic stem cell research, his opposition to a federal anti-gay marriage amendment and for his temper and use of foul language.

Okay, Mr. Dobson. Which current US president got caught using the s-word? Or had his little pal saying nasty things? Are you going to come around to me saying "That's unfair! He didn't do that before I wanted him to be President"? Or maybe your only trouble is that McCain dropped an f-bomb? He's not the first Republican to do such a thing, you know? Of course none of that matters. Why? Because if we can get the people who don't like the word "crap" for its filth to know that McCain says dirtier things, we can add shock factor to an otherwise decent (even though I don't agree with it) list. They aren't going to question the sensibility of making this assessment, but they will be distracted from what could be (even though I don't agree with them) genuine arguments about other things on the list. This is common among conservative evangelicals. Cue the global warming denial explanations that end with "It's all New Age anyway" and watch how they fall back on that last bit when you question any of their scientific points.

Tally 1--- Dobson is hypocritical, inconsistent, or both.
Tally 2--- Dobson puts the petty with the important.

Can we get another quote from that Yahoo article?

He said if McCain were the nominee, he would not cast a ballot for president for the first time in his life.

Dobson had left open the possibility that he would vote for either Romney or Huckabee, but endorsed neither.

Um, yeah.... Okay, I have some problems. First, what about this? And didn't the man himself write this (complete with its false dilemma)? Dobson told a whole lot of people that he'd go third party, but now he's backing out. What? He can't do what he said? Don't make promises you can't keep, brother. You didn't promise? Don't imply things you don't mean, brother. Second, what about Huckabee saying "Some people need to switch to decaf and realize, folks, we may not get all of our battles just like we want, but there's a larger context in which this has to be fought." Why would you even consider voting for someone who says something so... thoughtful? Because he says he respects gays or something? Dobson's zeal blinds him from reality. This time he's missing "Something is better than nothing." Next time it could be "America has changed in the past 200 years." People follow him anyway.

Tally 3--- Dobson pushes the bounds of honesty in Jesus' name.
Tally 4--- Dobson is willing to lead real sheeples into real shambles over unreal ideals.



Okay, I think I'll shut up now. Fat chance I'll ever see the day when Christian leaders in America can talk politics and not make me and their religion (or relationship, as some without dictionaries would prefer) look stupid by association. Jesus, please save us all.

Hey, There's Voting Today

... let's put out the laundry now so that nobody notices.

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.

Would Somebody Win Already?

Look, I've been hearing Hype '08 since about November 9, 2006. It's time for it to be over. Unfortunately, as with meat products, the total processing time in politics is longer when the ingredients contain more scraps. And that's what we have now, scraps. Seriously. The slate is

"My dreams need not become reality to give hope" Obama. Vision. Hope. No future.

"I'm going home to see mom so give me my football" Thompson. Way to sell yourself, big boy.

"I saw a UFO" Kucinich. Feh.

"I'll turn around our economy as I destroy the rest of the government" Romney. Just what we need.

"Hey, remember me? I was a vice presidential candidate once" whatever his name is. Get a cheaper haircut.

"Want to see my old newsletters?" Paul. Crazy old coot has no appeal.

"Older than dirt" McCain. This living personality cult now comes in Baptist.

"We've got to take back America for Christ" Huckabee. After all, Jefferson and Jesus were America's finest leaders, and they were Baptists too.

"Me and Monica have at least one thing in common" Clinton. Hey, she sucks.

"I was mayor of New York fer Chrissake, so why am I getting so few votes in other places" Giuliani. Um, because you suck, too?

I hope I'm not forgetting anyone. They aren't all that memorable, really. When I go to vote in PA in April and it means absolutely nothing because some drone is already going to win in November, I'll be looking forward to a brand new four years of competence, security, and good living in America.

PETA Sucks

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

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

House Prices Suck

I wonder exactly what President Bush says about this, given one of his past positions. Am I the only one who remembers his great idea that home ownership should be open for every family?

So, what would he say about this news?

Probably something like "Our Nation will stay the course, and we will prevail."

No doubt.

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.

Talking Head

I've accused Barak Obama of being nothing more than a pretty boy. This sort of lunacy helps me confirm my suspicion that he's all fluff in the head.

I'm all about big pictures, but when actions like wars are based only on big pictures we get results like bloody civil wars in unstable regions with American troops just stuck there dying at taxpayers expense. Big pictures need to be the motivation for plans, not the end.

When the best plan Obama can come up with is a love-fest about all the different kinds of bad things in the world and how they're all violence, someone really needs to pull the soapbox out from under him and give him a joint. Hope that sprang eternal never kept Casey from striking out. For that matter, while Flynn and Blake were as uninspiring as any hoodoo and cake, they at least got somewhere.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright.
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light.
And, somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout....

Or maybe not.

Play ball.

Bush 'ministration sez:

"Waaaaaaah! Separation of powers is for pansies and n00bs!"

Or something like that.

Toad Bush

I found out today that violating the FISA law on wiretaps is a felony and carries penalties of fines and imprisonment. From now on, until he confesses and requests to be punished under the law or otherwise gets his butt waxed for it, George Bush is officially a Toad.

Felons, by the way, deserve impeachment.