Anything You Can Do Badly, I Can Use to Render You Worse: The Next Attacks in a Bitter Character Battle in the Virginia Senate Race

While one is delving through the pages of the The Washington Post one might come across something entitled "Allen blasts Webb for Sex Scenes." While this might not cause one to pause at this page (unlike this reader), something does stand, blastingly, out at the end of the reading... Upon further examination of the article by Tim Craig and Michael Shear, these "sex scenes" can be discovered to be passages out of the Democratic opponent of Republican Virginia Senator George Allen, Jim Webb's, latest book.

Badly written fictional sex scenes beget character challenges in this next phase of nasty attacks between the two competitors for the Virginia Senate seat in this year's Senatorial elections. It wasn't as though George Allen himself made any inappropriate statements, such as calling a Webb staffer a "macaca" or monkey. Of course not. It is merely a matter of media. Written statements seem to be more appalling than videotape. After all, you can't trust those new contraptions anyways; only the power of the holy writ.

What sacred - or rather sacreligious- words might have the Senatorial candidate written? Unfortunately, such "literature", as Webb calls it, cannot be reproduced here. But if one is still racking one's brains for information, one can refer to the appropriate page on the Gawker Media's Washingtonian political establishment quippy blog, Wonkette, for the "colorful" prose that shocked the nation (or rather George Allen and his supporters).

After deep reflection of the passage, one blogger audaciously said "And somewhere Mark Foley is desperately looking for his library card..." Just the reaction somewhere I believe Senator Allen is hoping for. After all, if he can read it, what's to stop others, like Foley, from doing the same? What, indeed? Or rather, who? Have any ideas, Senator Allen?

Sex Quiz

Virginia Republican Senator George Allen, still entangled in his "Maccaca moment" (and a slew of allegations about racial insensitivity), is attempting to turn the tables on his rival, Democrat James Webb, by highlighting steamy sex scenes in Webb's novels. But as Slate remind us, Webb is far from the only Washingtonian who fancies himself a master of erotic fiction. Slate compiles a long list of cringe-inducing passages from notables such as Lynne Cheyney, Newt Gingrich and--perhaps strangest of all--Jimmy Carter. The challenge? Match the politician with the sex scene. Good luck!

I. F. Stone

The holidays are coming. If your gift list includes a left-wing grandparent, or someone interested in investigative reporting, I recommend a new biography of one of the heroes of my youth:

All Governments Lie!
The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone
by Myra MacPherson (2006 Scribners)

In the late 1960's "The Old Guy" and I subscribed to I.F. Stone's Weekly. For $5 a year, we got a four page newsletter in the mail every week or two containing news and opinion available nowhere else. Stone, a reporter since the 1920's, was a radical/liberal icon. The powers-that-be hated him (his FBI file ran to 5000+ pages), but they could rarely dispute the stories he reported.
Stone is mainly remembered by my generation for his passionate reporting on McCarthy in the 50's, and on the the Civil Rights movement and Viet Nam war in the 60's, but his analyses of government secrecy, the erosion of civil liberties in war time, and the role of the media are all too relevant today.

The Cost of Climate Change

Global warming is likely to be back in the news tomorrow when Sir Nicholas Stern releases a new 700 page report on its economic impact. The BBC reports (1,2) that Stern will warn that it is already to late to avoid some negative effects of warming. The world will have lost 20% from GDP expected from normal growth. He will be recommending economic action spending 1% of GDP to counter these effects. British Environment Secretary David Miliband warns that delaying action against climate change will further increase costs.
In reaction, the Sunday Times says it is Time to be big and bold. The National Association of Manufactures is already trotting out the junk science label and warning against an overheated reaction.

Is the GOP Terrorizing America?

A small debate erupted earlier this week regarding MSNBC host Keith Olbermann's assertion that a recent GOP advertisement is an example of terrorism. The ad features Osama bin Laden and others speaking against and threatening America, in order to stress dangers to our country and champion the national security issue in the upcoming midterm elections. Olbermann uses the definition of "terrorize" to compare the Republican effort to those of al-Qaeda and other groups:

"By this definition, the people who put these videos together, first the terrorists and then the administration, whose shared goal is to scare you into panicking instead of thinking, they are the ones terrorizing you. By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al-Qaeda. But the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party."

While the balance of the segment illustrates the extremity of Olbermann's anti-Bush viewpoint, he raises a good point regarding political tactics. Of course, blogosphere response ranges from "Olbermann makes a wonderful point" to comparing him to "some 'peace activist' moron."

On Volvos, Lattes, and Other Bastions of Political Consumerism

American society is truly a strange and beautifully frustrated phenomenon. We love community, but loathe any threat to our sacred individualism. We fear the unfamiliar, but can’t stand stagnancy. We toss suspicious glances in the direction of foreigners yet enthusiastically welcome such exotic concepts as Asian food and athletes with spiffy-sounding names. Such tastes surround, define, and connect us on multitudes of superficial levels, and in fact establish the foundations of water-cooler small talk and a large portion of university sociology departments. But do our hobbies, restaurants, and television shows determine more than our daily schedules? Do things as simple as the daily newspaper and the coffee we drink influence political beliefs and cultural creeds? Do we gravitate toward a particular grocery store because our moral convictions dictate thus?

The terrifying realities of these and other crucial quandaries didn’t stop author John Moe from exploring them. Moe’s latest book is entitled Conservatize Me: How I Tried to Become a Righty with the Help of Richard Nixon, Sean Hannity, Toby Keith, and Beef Jerky. A lifelong liberal, Moe immersed himself in so-called “conservative culture” for the entirety of one undoubtedly excruciating month, sacrificing his NPR for Rush Limbaugh, his New York Times for the Wall Street Journal, and presumably his organic vegan pita chips for solidified beef rinds in a can, or whatever it is self-professed diehards of the conservative nature consume.

The result is funny. The book is genuinely light-hearted, and it contains that delicate blend of the colloquial and pseudo-intellectual that leaves the average American reader feeling good about him or herself for completing an entire book off the imposing Non-Fiction table at Barnes and Noble and just enlightened enough to indulge in a moment of appreciation for the plight of “the others.” This is all well and good in the interest of the public readership. I have to ask myself, however: what is the deal with the premise behind this book in the first place? Why do I find myself smiling and nodding and professing the glory that is “All Things Considered” when this guy talks about liberals and NPR? Are Americans so politically narrow-minded that we allow such stereotypes and generalizations to dictate our habits? And are these stereotypes accurate?

Moe’s analysis amongst his humor does not ultimately answer these questions. Are we conservative because we listen to Toby Keith and drive SUVs? Or do we listen to Toby Keith in our SUVs because we are conservative? Is it morally acceptable to blast the aforementioned country singer in our Prius en route to a Dennis Kucinich rally at a free-range chicken co-op?

The successes of the book lie in the fresh perspectives on the trivial and often hilarious realm of cultural separatism. Democrats and Republicans share passions and news sources in their efforts to create and sustain community. This is not only understandable but inevitable, and what must be remembered is that “extracurricular” pursuits are only surface reflections of the moral and political beliefs underneath. They should not be employed as a basis of judgment. An individual supporting the legalization of marijuana cannot automatically be pinned as liberal, for indeed, many of our most illustrious Republican leaders have displayed an affinity for varieties of consciousness-altering substances (see Salon.com’s 2001 reflections on a certain President here). In the same vein, an individual listening to Rush Limbaugh cannot be immediately pegged as an arrogant conservative, but rather simply an unfortunate victim of bad radio. It’s all in the specifics, and in an election-year, what could be more beneficial than a book encouraging the accommodation of diversity?

US Foreign Policy: North Korea and Nuclear Weapons

October 9 2006, North Korea demonstrated their first use of nuclear weapons, leaving the US government with a question to face: how to approach North Korea without acknowledging their government as a legitimate international power. In regards to the threat of nuclear weapons and uncertain relations between the US and North Korea is it difficult to feel secure in the foreign policy of the current US administration and the

An independent blog written by Gregory Elich, goes into depth and clear explanation of the background in the dispute, misunderstanding and currently crumbling relationship between the US and North Korea. He notes that, “North Korea's nuclear test and UN sanctions have brought relations between the U.S. and North Korea to their lowest point since President Bush took office.”

From a more uncertain and destructive view, MotherJones blog reflects on the aggressive militaristic approach that the United States could potentially adopt and enforce. These strategic actions and theories have the potential to be threatening decisions to both the international community as well as the United States.

“The Onion,” satirical and sarcastic report and interpretation of political events notes that: "This is a grand day for the Democratic Peoples Republic Of Korea, whose citizens have sacrificed their wages, their food, and their lives so that our great nation could test a nuclear weapon thousands of feet beneath our own soil," read an excerpt from the statement. "Now the rest of the world must stand up and take notice that the DPRK, too, is capable of decimating years of its wealth at any given moment."

Although this excerpt is focusing on the fact that North Korea has dedicated all of their financial resources to nuclear weapons and testing at the cost of their nation, economy and the well-being of their people, it is alluding to the fact that in the process of creating and testing nuclear weapons, not only has North Korea managed to destroy itslf, but now has the power to destroy another nation effortlessly.

The threat of nuclear weapons from North Korea is a serious issue for the United States government. Is it difficult to know is peace and public debate will reconcile relations with North Korea in order to assure security for both the US and North Korea or if deterrence and harsh sanctions will be more effective.

The more diverse we are, the less trustful we become?

On October 8th, in Financial Times, John Lloyd wrote the article, “Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity”, introducing a new problem the American Society faces as it becomes more diverse. Harvard Professor Putnam’s study shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone.

This can be a disturbing finding to Americans since the United States has been a big immigration nation. Putnam says, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.” His study shows that the trust in Los Angeles, which is a highly diverse community, is the lowest.

Steve Sailer, in his blog, gives another light to this problem. He brings back the article that he wrote five years ago, “Diversity causes Bowling Alone”, as a response to Putnam’s book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community . There, he gives a counter example in Chicago uptown, where the community of great diversity is still friendly and interactive. However, he still believes that there are some difficulties that a diverse community faces. The list he writes entails the following: the language barrier, the high crime rate, the inter-community hatreds, some immigrants’ background where there was no trust among neighbors, and the fundamental difficulty of multicultural unity.

Many American political scientists have strived to define American values, culture, and society. Putnam’s study adds another layer to the understanding of America. He provides an answer to deal with this situation: “What we shouldn’t do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us.”

Cracking Down on Tax-payer services for Immigrants: Proposition 300

The issue of immigration is as controversial now as it has ever been. It is a fact that new immigrants have a substantial role in the economy and society. It has been reported that new immigrants are replacing native-born citizens in the labor market . As immigrants continue to have increasing roles in the labor market, it is no surprise that states have begun to monitor and limit the number of social services and benefits immigrants can receive. In Arizona, when voters vote for Proposition300 they will be amending the loopholes which allow many immigrants to receive services such as adult education, financial assistance for immigrant students, in-state tuition, and many others. Many believe that Proposition 300 is the solution to the longstanding issue of immigrants using tax-funded services. In a pamphlet issued by Arizona Secretary of State Janice Brewer, she states that Proposition 300 is important because “[it is] is designed to help Arizonans who are struggling to develop their job skills or support their family…by offering these services to illegal aliens, it increases the burden on our state programs and robs our own citizens of services they’ve paid for with their taxes…it is vital we spend our tax dollars on helping Arizonans and not aid and abet illegal aliens”

Judicial Activism Revisited

This weekend, CNN.com has expanded on the judicial activism issue with a new poll and interview.

Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave CNN's "Broken Government" series an interview where she espoused worry about Congressional crictism of the Supreme Court. "I saw increasing indicators of unhappiness with judges," O'Connor said, "We heard all kinds of statements by members of Congress, by state legislators. We saw legislation introduced to somehow restrict or affect judges at both the state and federal levels." She's very uncomfortable with the growing number of politicians' using the term "activist judges" saying that "...to see our courts now, under such serious attack, is a concern..."

According to a CNN poll released Saturday, American citizens aren't siding with the politicians on this issue. Sixty-seven percent of 1,013 people surveyed by Opinion Research Corp. on behalf of CNN said they did not think elected officials should have more control over federal judges and the decisions they make in court cases. Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School recognizes the importance of judicial freedom in a related CNN article, saying "We're in a very perilous time when the independence of the courts is vital to making sure the president doesn't go too far, even in an act of well-meaning zeal, to keep the fabric of our Constitution together."

One woman firmly rooted in the 30% wanting more control is Phyllis Schafly, whose book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It was re-released in a revised, updated, and expanded version. SCOTUSblog featured Mrs. Schafly in their Ask the Author series this week. Read their two part interview here and here.

United States Takes a Stand for Sudan

Unfortunately, the current situation in Sudan is getting worse and there seems to be no end in sight. While the United States has been one of the most outspoken nations who condemn the current genocide, and have agreed to refer to it as such, even the US hasn’t been particularly proactive in putting an end to it. There has been reason for hope recently. This past Wednesday, after Secretary Rice spoke with UN Secretary General Annan, the current administration announced its dissatisfaction with the situation and its belief that something needs to be done. Unfortunately, the United Nations charter will not allow the international community to truly take action and assist in the Darfur region as the Sudanese government refuses to accept peacekeepers within its borders. Condoleeza Rice and her envoy to Sudan are working to encourage Arab nations to persuade Sudan to allow the UN to assist. This comes a week and a half after the President of the United States signed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (sponsored by Senators Russell Feingold and Barack Obama, article) and an executive order regarding “Blocking Property of and Prohibiting Transactions with the Government of Sudan”. In addition to imposing sanctions on those with some degree of responsibility for the conflict in particular the oil industry which is making the already wealthy Khartoum even richer and in many ways more corrupt, this order also encourages and supports humanitarian actions and any move toward peace. The President also argues that it is a threat to our homeland security. Obviously preoccupied with the war in Iraq our administration has done very little in terms of getting actively involved in Darfur, but these recent developments are definitely a step in the right direction.

Evangelical Support for Halloween and the Iraq War

“Satan’s holiday”, as Halloween is called by millions of Evangelical Protestants, is just around the corner. With this celebration of all things dark and mysterious comes the opportunity for many Evangelical churches to reach out to the community. As hundreds of communities plan for their haunted house, Guts Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma (among others), takes the “haunted” to the next level. According to an article on Beliefnet.com, some Evangelical churches create “Hell Houses” in which visitors see “blood-and-guts scenes of real human terror: drunk driving accidents; drug overdoses; abortions gone bad”. The exhibit, called “Nightmare” at Guts Church, finishes in a room in which the participants are given the chance to believe.

Hell Houses might be the most popular party in some of these towns. “Nightmare” brings about 30,000 people every year. However, it is debatable as to whether very many of these people have yet to be saved.

While these churches set up vehicles of saving for many children’s favorite holidays, the Evangelical support for the war in Iraq has been waning. In the last month, support for the administration’s decision to enter Iraq has slipped from 71% to 58%. At the same time, the support among Republicans remains high at 78%, compared to September’s 76%.

The Daily Show Rocks midterm elections

The writers of the Daily Show resurrected their American Politics notes to create an educational School house Rocks parody conveying the importance of midterm elections. The show employed an american educational staple to illustrate another American staple, voter apathy. But in this parody, the writers blame more than just the voter. "Incumbent Bill" features in this musical ode to the almost perfect incumbency rate of imperfect candidates.
funny because it's true

Iraq: "The Most Hellish Place on Earth"

A recent article by Simon Jenkins claims that Great Britain and the United States "have turned Iraq into the most hellish place on earth" (Jenkins). No matter one's position on the initial invasion, it is fairly evident that the events and strategies since then have not gone according to plan. Now with more and more of the public urging for retraction of the troops, "policy in Iraq is now entering its retreat phase. Where there is no no hope of victory, the necessity for victory must be asserted ever more strongly" (Jenkins). And therein lies the rub.

The need for victory forces the Bush administration to keep troops in Iraq while the omnipresent looming defeat forces the need to pull out and cease the seemingly futile presence of the American and British troops. As they prepare for the inevitable pullout, "the spin doctors are already at work...[blaming] the ingratitude and uselessness of the Iraqis themselves" when the best plan of action would have been to leave after deposing Saddam and let them settle their government themselves (Jenkins). So, the Iraqis will be blamed for a job the coalition botched. While staunch defenders of the invasion argued that the Iraqis couldn't have handled forming their own government (at least not a democratic one), they might have achieved some stability after being left to their own devices. And if this were not true, wouldn't it be better if their country was the most hellish place on earth because of their own devices and not our mismanaged attempts?

First Female Circumcision Trial in the U.S.

What happens when a culture—its values, traditions and practices—collide with (western) public policy—a general set of values—in the United States? The United States is experiencing its first female circumcision trial: an Atlanta father is being accused of performing a circumcision on her 2-year-old daughter with scissors.
The father, an immigrant from Ethiopia, argues that female circumcision is practices widely in his home country; he argues that it is part of his culture; he also says “he never circumcised his daughter or asked anyone to do so” article
It is interesting to me how this is probably the first trial against female circumcision in the United States. Trials have been happening for decades in Europe, mainly in France; the fight, conflict between traditions and a country’s stated human rights. Is Universalism arrogance? Is Relativism indifference? (Cowan 56,58). Certainly, both the United States and France have many cultural groups, immigrants. But why is it that trials connected to cultural issues and public policy have been happening a lot more outside of the United States?
For an interesting case study, read the case study by Marie-Bénédicte Dembour : Erring Uncomfortably in Between: Female Circumcision as an Unlikely Illustration.

Cowan, Jane, Dembour, Marie-Bénédicte, and Wilson, Richard A., Ed. Culture and Right: Anthropological Perspectives. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Baseball and the Missouri Senate Race

According to Pollster.com, in order to gain control of the Senate, the Democrats must win two of the three “toss-up” states: Missouri, Virginia and Tennessee. The Missouri race, between Republican Senator Jim Talent and Democrat Claire McCaskill, is interesting because the results of the Missouri polls cited in the Election Scorecard are affected by the St. Louis Cardinals’ participation in the World Series. While hype in Missouri surrounding the World Series may decrease poll participation, the polls may also be affected by a televsion commercial aired during the World Series featuring Michael J. Fox promoting stem cell research which has drawn fire from conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and spawned response commercials.

The Iraq Impact

With the election coming up so fast, Democrats are doing their best to draw attention to the United States' entrenched position in Iraq. (For a good analysis of the effect Iraq is having on the elections, read Laura Rosen's blog entry for yesterday). But what people aren’t hearing a lot about right now are some of the newer regional implications of the war.

Today, the New York Times published an article discussing the current plight of Christians in Iraq. It explains that recent comments made by the Pope have diverted sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites while they target Iraqi Christians in retaliation. Rather than remain and face the violence, Christians from all denominations are leaving the country—and becoming yet another group of Middle Eastern refugees.

Additionally, the history of attacks on the Iraq-Turkey pipeline have prompted the United States and Britain to take a serious view of recent threats made to Gulf oil fields. Given the new contract that Japan is negotiating with Iraq, it’s all the more important for the United States to look after its oil interests. Sending warships into the Gulf may just be the first step.

Last month the Environmental Protection Agency announced a new set of standards for soot emission. The Sierra Club published an article attacking the EPA's low standards for soot emission, or particulate matter pollution. The article acknowledges the decrease in daily soot emission allowed, but calls the new standard "weak" and "minimal." Furthermore, the Sierra Club accuses the EPA of aiding the companies responsible for the soot emissions by keeping the standards low, which will put 77 million vulnerable Americans at risk for "deadly pollution," causing "asthma, heart attacks, and even premature death." A news release from the Environmental Valuation & Cost-Benefit News cites evidence released by the EPA putting the cost of stricter standards at $1.9 billion annually, but the potential health costs between $4.3 and $50 billion annually. The EPA defends their decision, citing "insufficient evidence" of the health risks from high levels of soot emission, but both articles conclude by accusing the EPA of basing their decision on what the Sierra Club calls "political science, not medical science."

Bush Signs Bill Authorizing 700 Mile-Long Fence on Mexican Border

On Thursday October 26, President Bush signed a controversial bill authorizing the construction of a 700 mile-long fence that will stretch across the border between the United States and Mexico. As reported by Michael A. Fletcher and Jonathon Weisman of The Washington Post, the bill has created controversy among both democrats and republicans.
According to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn,) "The American people demand border security, and this Republican Congress and President are committed to achieving operational control of the border through an enforcement-first approach." Many Republicans are vying for stronger and tougher regulation of illegal immigration and view the passage of the bill as a first step in controlling the flow of illegal immigrants across the Mexican border. According to the Washington Post, Bush also “portrayed the measure as a key step toward comprehensive immigration reform”; yet signing the bill has placed him in conflict with international allies and his personal immigration principles. The government of Mexican president Vicente Fox , has made it very clear that he wished the bill to be vetoed by President Bush.
Bush had originally called for legislation that would combine increased re-enforcement at the border with a legalized guest-worker program for low-skilled workers entering the United States. He also wanted to create legislation that would provide illegal immigrants already living in the United States a chance to acquire citizenship. “These measures were rejected by Congressional Republicans who wish to take a tougher stance on immigration.”(Washington Post) A large part of the motivation for Bush to sign the bill could be the fact that the passage of the bill into law could help win votes for Republicans in many of the upcoming Congressional elections.
Congressional Democrats are unhappy with the bill and many feel that the construction of the fence will not be an effective measure in the control of illegal immigration. It would be technically challenging to construct a fence on many stretches of the border, which are marked by rough terrain. It would also be easy for smugglers to break through the fence in remote stretches of the border. At this point in time, only a small portion of the billions necessary for the construction of such a fence have been appropriated.

Abortion Rights?

Since pro-life advocates still have not succeeded in getting Roe v. Wade overturned, the abortion battle continues at the state level, as we see in the upcoming election on three state ballots.

In California, Proposition 85 would mandate a 48-hour waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking abortions. Only slight wording changes from last year’s strikingly similar Proposition 73, which failed, give the pro-life stance hope that 85 will pass and protect young women, while the pro-choice camp points out the similarities in the two propositions that both chip away at a minor’s right to privacy.

The Oregon Measure 43 would require parental notification for minors aged 15 to 17 seeking abortions. Oregon law already mandates parental consent for minors 14 and younger.

In South Dakota, Bill 1215, which passed in March and has since received national attention, is under referendum on their ballot because of the signatures gathered by the Campaign for Healthy Families. The law made it a felony to perform an abortion, with an exception only to save the life of the mother. South Dakota is not alone with its bill—eleven other states have similar bans on almost all abortions.

Mudslinging, the New Prime Time Soap Opera

The only thing that seems to be happening in Massachusetts, is the much anticipated and fast approaching Governor race. There is much momentum on both sides, as they try to rally any last support before the election. However, not all attempts seem completely friendly. Deval Patrick, for example, has often been heard quoting the figure that under Gov. Romney Massachusetts has lost 148,000 jobs. However, the Boston Globe reports that this number is far from accurate, relying on the job peak back in 2001. Overall, under Gov. Romney Massachusetts has gained over 13,000 jobs.

Despite this small glitch, Patrick seems to be way ahead in the polls. The 7News-Suffolk University poll released just before the most recent debate, showed Patrick widening his lead, as discontent with Lt. Governor Healey’s aggressive ads grows. “Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said the tone of Healey's campaign made them less likely to vote for her, and 53 percent said they had an unfavorable view of Healey. By contrast, 60 percent of voters had a positive view of Patrick, whose lead grew from 21 to 27 percentage points this month” (The Globe). Independents specifically have been turned off by Healey’s negative ads.

Good thing there's no World Series this year to distract us from the mudslinging this political season.

Analyzing a Democratic Takeover in the House

According to the Cook Political Review, a survey conducted by the Democracy Corps identified 49 Republican districts that are in serious danger of being usurped by Democratic challengers. The Democratic party would need to gain just 15 seats on November 7th to have a majority in the House.

The Democrats, however, are swiftly moving past the most contested races and heading into strongly Republican territory, under the direction of James Carville, who suggested that the Democrats utilize millions of dollars to assist "previously ignored Democratic challengers."

The Democratic party has not yet sealed their victory. In an essay published earlier this year by Political Science professor Alan Abramowitz of Emory University, the notion of macro versus micro is brought into consideration. Abramowitz concludes that national factors will have an effect on the 2006 midterm election, but he also points to the inherent advantage of all incumbents, as well as the fact that the national political mood does not necessarily predict the outcomes of specific, localized elections.

Although control of the House is within close reach of the Democrats, they aren't taking their victory for granted. Other factors may make their takeover more difficult than originally thought. The outcome will remain ambiguous until Americans cast their votes on November 7.

New Jersey Ruling

So, the Supreme Court ruling is in and same-sex couples must be given the same relationship recognition as opposite-sex couples. The use of the term "marriage" was avoided and a decision has been set out that "the name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."

Election Predictions

It seems that the national spotlight keeps shifting. Due to the Iraq war, scandals, and budget deficits, the Republican situation has been getting increasingly serious during the past year. In September there was slight upturn for the Republicans when the spotlight shifted to falling gasoline prices and progress with terrorism. At the end of September, the attention shifted again as problems in Iraq exponentially increased and scandals continued to emerge such as the one involving Mark Foley. According to Charlie Cook, a political forecaster, if there is a spotlight shift right before the election it has to be severe enough to pull public attention away from the multitude of factors that are attributed to the potential freefall for the Republicans.

Furthermore, Cook observes that the Democrats seem much more excited to cast their votes than the Republicans, and a potential higher voter turn out for Democrats could be an influencing factor in this election.

Same-Sex Marriage Showdown

A big issue for the gay and lesbian community is the upcoming decision--expected today--in the New Jersey Supreme Court. It is going to make a decision on the Mark Lewis, et al. vs Gwendolyn L. Harris case, which is basically a decision on the 'same-sex marriage' question. The case was brought to the New Jersey court by seven gay couples who claim that the state's current constitution allows them to marry. This is a pivotal ruling as it is a continuation of the hope to battle the rights of homosexuals state by state. Many commentors are unclear at this point how the decision will go, this is owing to recent marriage defeats in New York and Washington.

Iraq War Deaths

The October 21 issue of the Lancet has published a controversial article on the civilian deaths in Iraq since the invasion. The article reports on a survey which suggests that an estimated 654,965 (392, 979–942,636) extra deaths may have occurred in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006 as result of the war (news release). An earlier study by the same authors estimated that there were around 100,000 excess deaths during the early part of the war. The death rate has steadily increased since the war began. The study found that most of the additional deaths were of men and caused by gunshots or bombs. The Washington Post provides further information on the study in a discussion transcript with Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study and Co-Director, Center for Refugee and Disaster Response , Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. As for the reasons for doing the study he says: “Our Center in Baltimore is one that is focused on public health in disasters--and we look at many types of disasters--being heavily involved in estimating deaths in Aceh after the tsunami and also from famine in North Korea. Of all the disasters--war is the worst--any way you sample, any way you count.”

This is a much higher estimate than is given by other sources. Jefferson Morley in his Washington Post blog provides a good summary of the reaction to this article. Addition summaries can be found at various news sites (1, 2, 3). (The variation between 600,000 and 655,000 in different reports reflects violent deaths (the lower number) or total excess deaths.) The political reaction was predictable: President Bush denounced the estimate as way too high. His followers agreed generally citing figures of 30,000-60,000 dead. U.S. and Iraq Government estimates that have attempted to go beyond official reports are higher than other estimates but around 5 times lower than this new report. Even some less biased groups such as the Iraq Body Count think the new estimates may be a factor of 5 to 10 too high. At the other extreme some antiwar groups were immediately convinced.

The reliance on official sources by most others seems to be the source of much of the disparity in estimates. This study actually went out and asked people about deaths in their family (or living group). Most (92%) of the family death reports were backed up by death certificates. If I understand Dr. Burnham’s discussion answers correctly, the study group found that official reporting channels had either reported only 20% of these deaths orin some cases none of them.

Many pollsters, demographers and others knowledgeable in statistical survey methods agree that the study was well designed and the conclusions may be correct. But there are numerous critics. Some commentators just distrust statistical methods or assume that the authors made some stupid mistake (multiple counting of the same deaths, etc). These critics often point that this would mean officials who currently recognize a death rate of 86 per day would be overlooking more than 500 additional bodies lying around. As one of the study’s authors points out in the BBC article, “"There have to be ~300 deaths per day from natural cause even if Iraq was the healthiest 26 million people in the world.” Clearly, the officials are not reporting most of the country’s deaths whether or not this study is correct.

Additional criticism of the study was written by Steven Moore in the Wall Street Journal. Steven Moore thinks the choice of only 47 sampling clusters was way too low: “I wouldn't survey a junior high school… using only 47 cluster points.” It would be nice to have data from more clusters. The small number of clusters and few actually reported deaths a the major cause of the uncertainty of the number of deaths. But a real bias would show up only if the study included a cluster or two with a really high number of deaths.

There are knowledgeable critics who fault the study for failing to do demographics on their sample households and match them with the overall Iraqi population (assuming valid figures are available). This would have improved the accuracy of the study but the authors felt that collecting such data would make the families less likely to participate. Many of the report’s critics dislike its use of a pre-war death rate of 5.5 per 1,000. There is a UN study used 9 per 1,000. However the lower 5.5 rate is what the study obtained from the family reports and this is in line with the official CIA estimate. The higher pre- war death rate would make fewer of the deaths “excessive.

A news article in Science magazine quotes physicists at Oxford University who are concerned that the study’s avoidance of back alleys caused a main street bias which could have caused erroneously high mortality estimates. A similar concern was expressed elsewhere but no one had a clear explanation of why this would lead to a higher death rate. It would be nice to see this concern addressed but security concerns kept the sampling on larger streets.

I have read the study (as a mathematically knowledgeable non-expert) and find it fairly convincing. My biggest worry would be that a sampling bias has occurred in spite of the authors' serious effort to randomize their selection of sampling cohorts. In a war zone, I don’t know why the biases would favor a high rather than a low estimate. The “limitations” section of the report has some chilling hints that might suggest that the estimate could be low rather than high. The study directly determines death rate so if a substantial number of people have fled Iraq the number of deaths would be lower. It boggles my mind that that the death rate could be so high without much official notice but I think someone will have to do a well funded credible and complete study before these numbers can be dismissed (or accepted).

Critics are skeptical of the “October Surprise” release and the fact that it was a statistical survey instead of a direct body count. They also don’t like the fact that some news outlets reported the 655K excess deaths while others reported the 600K violent deaths. I have yet to find an entirely compelling argument against the study but it seems destined to be ignored because it both annoys the war supporters and disagrees with studies generated by groups that would like a big club to use on the Bush administration. Radical groups will adopt it but their approval won’t help the studies credibility. The authors seemed to think they were just publishing a nonpartisan disaster evaluation.

Turning Point?

Have we finally reached a turning point in Iraq? In an interview, President Bush, perhaps inadvertently, accepted an analogy between the last few weeks there and the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, often labelled as the turning point for American opinion towards that war. Yesterday Major General William B. Caldwell, a commander in Iraq, made an unusually frank admission that a three-month campaign to lower the violence in Baghdad had failed miserably. And yesterday was particularly awful for American troops, who suffered more casualties than they had in many months. Doree Shafrir in Slate has a useful round-up on what Iraq War bloggers are saying about all this.

At the Median

Imagine what a blow it would be to the Democratic Party if Republicans were somehow able to hold on to both houses amidst the parade of GOP bummers: Foley, Iraq, North Korea, Katrina, Woodward, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, David Kuo, Abu Ghraib and so many others.

If not now for the Democrats, then when?

Of course there is one big thing--probably the biggest electorally--that hasn't yet gone terribly wrong for the Republicans, and that's the economy. (Gas prices--gas prices!--probably hurt the Bush Administration as much as any item above when they rose this summer.) Most of the aggregate economic numbers look good, but as Kevin Hall reminds us, for the median income family (about $64,000), the Bush years haven't been terribly kind.