On the danger of factions

Great little observation here about single-issue, high-powered ethno-religious lobby groups. Namely Armenian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, and the famous/infamous Israeli lobby. Fallows pulls a great quote from the Federalist papers, about 'Factions'

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common
impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or
to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Sound familiar?

Barry Manilow is a petulant child

...and corrosive to the fabric of an open, democratic society.

Apparently, Barry Manilow backed out of a scheduled appearance on the View, the best of daytime TV, because he didn't want to be interviewed by Elisabeth Hasselbeck because of her political views. Yeah. You read that right. Hmmmmm. Who else can I think of who only allows himself to be interviewed by people he agrees with....oh yeah....a certain president who has a single-letter nickname? Hmmm? Manilow, by the way, is a solid left-winger, as can be seen here, at the NYTimes' political donations search engine (I know I just dissed them yesterday). He donated $2,300 each to Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Joe Biden, and surprisingly, Ron Paul. I also seem to remember him being associated with some sort of left-wing causes, but I can't recall exactly.

Anyway, so Manilow's a leftie while Hasselbeck is pretty conservative, so here's what his website says:

Hey guys,

I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be on The View tomorrow as scheduled. I had made a request that I be interviewed by Joy, Barbara or Whoopi, but not Elisabeth Hasselback. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out.

It’s really too bad because I've always been a big supporter of the show, but I cannot compromise my beliefs. The good news is that I will be on a whole slew of other shows promoting the new album so I hope you can catch me on those.

Love,
Barry

OMG that makes my blood boil. 'This simple request'...what?! How is it possibly a 'simple request' to ask a show (any show) to not have one of their main hosts present while you are a guest? At best it is impossibly misguided or ignorant, while at worst it is slimy, repulsive, and arrogant. Then, he tries to make it seem ok, by saying 'but I cannot compromise my beliefs.' What beliefs? That differing views are beneath your discussion? That you will somehow be physically compromised by your proximity to a conservative (albeit a gorgeous one)? That like-minded liberals will think less of you because you dared speak with one of the others?

TMZ originally broke the story here. Apparently he said to the site in a statement that he thought Hasselbeck's views were "dangerous". Well, let me fill you in on something Barry, in an open society, when we think views are dangerous, we don't run away from them and don't listen to them....what kind of message does that send? to anyone....friends, allies, enemies, even your children? In an open, free society Barry, we debate and argue and discuss, we share different experiences and points of view, and we TRY TO CHANGE THE OTHER PERSONS MIND. If you find her views dangerous...go up there and tell her! Lay out a reasoned, civilized argument as to why she is wrong, and why her beliefs are counterproductive (disclosure, I actually do think she is a little loony, and some of her views are quite disgusting). don't run away like a petulant child. it's juvenile and corrosive, and possibly evil. don't make ridiculous and impossible demands to satisfy your self-righteousness. WIN THE ARGUMENT.

Lies everywhere

I ran across two completely unrelated, yet seemingly identical instances of data manipulation recently that I thought I would call out.

The first, from the NYT, suggests that the Pentagon and Bush Administration revised upwards the casualty totals from last winter, to retrospectively show a decline in violence during the much ballyhooed Surge-that-will-win-the-war (who the f calls a military strategy a surge? Eisenhower or Roosevelt would've laughed in his face).

"There were significant revisions to the way the Pentagon’s reports measure sectarian violence between its March 2007 report and its June 2007 report. The original data for the five months before the surge began (September 2006 through January 2007) indicated approximately 5,500 sectarian killings. In the revised data in the June 2007 report, those numbers had been adjusted to roughly 7,400 killings – a 25% increase. These discrepancies have the impact of making the sectarian violence appear significantly worse during the fall and winter of 2006 before the President’s “surge” began."

Another example comes from the publicly reported filings of Overstock.com, which have been analyzed by Sam Antar, reformed white-collar criminal. Overstock has been engaging in similarly sketchy machinations, this time with its inventory. In accounting, you track the value of your inventory-on-hand by estimating the lower of two numbers: either its cost, or its current market value. IF you don't sell your inventory, and it sits around and becomes unfashionable etc., then your inventory reduces in value. Typically companies will institute 'inventory reserves'. I'm going to use Sam's example:

In the first quarter, a company buys merchandise for $120, its books and records will reflect $120 of inventory.

In the second quarter, the company, under GAAP, reduces the value of its merchandise by increasing inventory reserves by $50 to reflect diminished future demand and market conditions. Therefore, in the second quarter, the company reduces its gross margins by $50. The net inventory book value on its balance sheet is reduced to $70 (original cost $120 less $50 inventory reserves).

In the third quarter, the company sells the merchandise for $90. Since the net value book value of the merchandise was previously reduced to $70, (as a result of taking a $50 reserve against its original purchase price of $120 in a previous quarter), the company recognizes gross margins of $20 (Sales $90 minus net book value $70).

The company, under GAAP, had gross margins of $20 in third quarter after selling the previously written down inventory. It would seem on its face to be an improvement over the reduction of gross margins by $50 in the second quarter resulting from the inventory write down. However, in reality the company lost $30 on its merchandise. The original cost of the merchandise was $120 and they sold it for $90.

Therefore, taking inventory reserves increases future gross margins.

Sam has put together a 3-part post (warning, pretty technical part 1, part 2, part 3) on the sleight-of-hand being done by the company behinds the scenes. In recent conference calls, the Overstock.com company executives have been touting their recently high margins. Well, as is convincingly demonstrated by Sam, overstock.com cooked the books by taking too many inventory reserves in previous quarters, which reflects positively on margins when they actually sell the inventory in later quarters, but is still a net loss for the company. Sound familiar? Like...maybe what the Bush Administration just did?

Brilliant post from one of Andrew Sullivan's honeymoon replacements

My absolute favorite blogger in the world (and the favorite blogger of like 1 million people), Andrew Sullivan, recently got married and is away from his blog, however his guests have really stepped up to the plate. Check out this diatribe about Democrat cowardliness based on a Washington Post editorial. My favorite quote:

Dear God, Democrats: grow a spine. Figure out that if there's no principle for which you would willingly lose your office, then you don't deserve to hold it in the first place. The liberties enshrined in our Constitution matter more than your political careers.

my italics

"I Have a dream" anniversary

It was given 44 years ago today, by certainly one of the greatest English-language orators ever recorded. Right up there with Churchill, JFK, and MacArthur as my favorites. American Rhetoric has a full-length copy right here. Skip to the last half-cm or so if you dont want to hear it all.

Some of my personal favorites are just rhetorical flourishes or turns-of-phrase (I'm not sure if that should be hyphenated...I'm keeping it because it looks good) that exemplify MLK's oratorical genius. A few that don't get mentioned much are:

"but we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt"

"in the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."

"we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream"

I was pretty sure that I had heard Obama mention this last line in the speech announcing his candidacy, so I googled it. Well. Turns out that "justice roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream" is from Amos 5:24, in the good, old King James version of the bible (not so nice in other versions: "And roll on as waters doth judgment, And righteousness as a perennial stream"). I never even got to Obama.

Anyway, please listen, at least to the last 30 secs to 1 minutes of MLK's speech. It will give you chills. He rallies everyone, and then builds to a delirious crescendo: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Nice. Very nice. Still goose-bumpy here.

More on gay Craig

Well....I was pretty quick to the punch with this guy yesterday, I'm proud, the blogosphere has GONE NUTS over it. The most interesting piece, however, is from the Idaho Statesman. The gay Senator's hometown paper has been all over his queerness for some time now, apparently:

Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982 pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages.

This was all apparently instigated by some blog-directed accusations last year about Craig's sexuality, which apparently followed some from 1982, when he pre-emptively denied accusations of being gay, and then no-one accused him anyway. Oh the humor in the hypocrisy! Anyway, the Statesman apparently also ran down some interesting tales regarding Mr. Craig, and even has juicy bits from the transcript right here.

Are all Republicans gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that

Yet another one, Senator Larry Craig from Idaho! Some gems from the undercover cop who arrested him for soliciting sex in a public bathroom:

I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

OMG that is funny. I'm still laughing. 'No!' And the smoothness of the cop to just flash his badge under the stall!

Anyway, I thought now would be a good time to nominate a second moment for my Favourite Seinfeld Moments:

Will it never end?

No, of course not, not until inauguration day 2009. Can you imagine the pardons we're going to get? Kenneth Lay and the rest of the Enron/World Com boys would be a given, I would think Libby too by then, perhaps Gonzalez once he is convicted of contempt of congress?

By 'it' I refer to cronyism, the most disgusting and dominating aspect of this sordid administration. Imagine, if you will, what a McCain government would have accomplished after 9/11 (the alternative, a Gore Presidency, is even rosier)...Afghanistan would've been smashed, and a deft coalition of concerned partners, perhaps even a roundtable of neighbors (including Iran, Pakistan, and China), could've been brought together to minimize the potential disruption and instability. No Iraq, of course, since that was the unique domain of Cheney and co. McCain was simply too much of a realist (in the political science sense of the term). Oh....the dreams. Anyway, I digress.

Anyway, the true legacy of Bush, is not, I think, the fall of the grand 'conservative' coalition that has been tossed around in many circles since Rove's resignation. It is not even this bizarre set of foreign adventures. It is simply a legacy of sheer, unadulterated, mind-numbing, jaw-dropping incompetence. To be sure, incompetence might have contributed to both above legacies, but I think it all started with incompetence. I never thought I would long for a principled, small-government, isolationist, tax-cutting Republican....at least I can trust them to do what they claim they will do.

Where is MAR going with this rambling rant? Here. With the demise of one of the top 2 or 3 most egregious examples of nepotistic, cronysitic, myopic administration hiring practices (Gonzalez), the rumor is that Bush and co. have masterminded a new potential nominee for Most Nepostic and Cronyistic Bush Hire Ever.

Who is this Grand Master of Ass-Kissing you ask? Rumor is Clay Johnson III might be nominated as Homeland Security Secretary (I went to a private, elite, Southern university, and I am proud to know only one individual who is a III anything [although he is a pretty good guy]).

Let's take a look at this Clay Johnson III (he is currently Deputy Director for Management at the OMB). First sign of lip-puckering...this guy not only went to Yale with Bushie....he was in the same frat... and he even went to Andover too! He fawns over Bush in that interview, although he falls short of claiming the President ever was a decent student, or even interested in politics through college (how many leaders of democratically elected countries weren't into politics in college? Probably one -the US).

The man Bush wants to install as Homeland Security Secretary has absolutely no qualifications for the job...none at all. This is Harriet Myers all over again. Why do I say that? What kind of experience does he have? Well.....he is a businessman, with a masters in management from NYU's Sloan school, no direct shame in that. He's worked for:

• Citicorp,
  
• Frito's,
  
• Wilson sporting goods,
  
• and a mail order company.

Not too bad, but certainly nothing relevant. He's done some reasonable non-private sector work, is should give him credit there as well:

• running the Dallas Museum of Art
• teaching at the UT business school in Austin
• serving as a board member for some charitable organizations.

Then of course, he has been climbing up the Sycophant/Crony/Old-frat-buddy-career track that has given us Gonzalez, Harriet Myers, that moron blonde from Liberty University who told congress she swore an oath to the President not the Constitution, and that idiot horseman who 'ran' FEMA during Katrina.

• Deputy Director for Management at the OMB - read: in charge of keeping everyone in-line with Bush Party Line and generally politicizing the OMB
  
• Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel - read: in charge of keeping everyone in-line with Bush Party Line and making sure new hires are sufficiently sycophantic
• Executive Director of Busch-Cheney Transition - read: in charge of keeping everyone in-line with Bush Party Line during Transition and making sure new hires are sufficiently sycophantic
• Gubernatorial Chief of Staff - I don't know enough about his governorship to slam this, but it can't have been illustrious

So....can anyone tell me what in that CV possibly qualifies this man for Homeland Security Secretary? Someone with law enforcement experience?...or maybe someone with an in-depth knowledge of the country's infrastructure?...an expert in counter-terrorism?...a life-long bureaucrat with experience navigating Washington's notorious red tape and back rooms? Even a truck driver with transportation-industry experience? Does he have any of these?

Oh!!! I've got it. Clay Johnson III is qualified to be the man primarily responsible with securing the United States against another terrorist attack.....because he once worked at a mail order company and therefore has in-depth knowledge on how to counter nefarious Jihadist plans involving the mail system! oh wait, his experience was back pre-internet, you know....when people actually used the mail. oh wait, the anthrax mail-terrorism was home-grown, not islamist. Well, there aren't many of Bush's frat brothers left by now, are there?

More on the electoral college

Slate has a good piece up about the electoral college and that new BS initiative in California by Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin. Interesting in general, and makes a good three points about what's wrong with the current system:

First, it betrays the principle of majority rule, threatening every four years to deliver the White House to the popular-vote loser. Second, it reduces the general election contest to a matter of what happens in Ohio, Florida, and a handful of other swing states, leaving most Americans (who live in forsaken "red" and "blue" states) on the sidelines. This in turn depresses turnout and helps give us one of the worst rates of voter participation on earth. Third, because of its proven pliability, the Electoral College invites partisan operatives, legislators, secretaries of state and even Supreme Court justices to engage in constant strategic mischief and manipulation at the state level.

What I found interesting in the article, however, is what's called the 'national popular vote plan', whereby the states create an interstate compact and agree to award their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Several states have passed it already, and after all, the Constitution specifically gives this freedom, in Article II Section I: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." (my italics, obviously).

The current system is arbitrary, accident-prone, and increasingly untenable. On that I can agree with the Republicans who back the California initiative. What I cannot accept is that a more convoluted system, undertaken by a single state for transparently political reasons, is the solution. It is time for the American people to elect the president directly and democratically.

Here, here.

Splitting electoral votes...moronic

Ridiculous piece mentioned by my favorite polisci blog here. California is thinking of splitting its Electoral College votes by congressional district! As is pointed out, the flaw:

is the fact that the congressional districts in most states have been gerrymandered and usually in a way that radically over-represents one of the two parties–this is certainly the case in California, where a large number of the districts are “safe” for either the Democrats or the Republicans.

I agree with Dr. Taylor, the Electoral college is outdated, fundamentally patronizing at the outset, and distorting of the people's will. The most insidious effect, however, is the fact that a Democratic vote in Texas (as Dr. Taylor put it), or a Republican vote in California, is essentially only symbolic. I think that the Electoral College has contributed to the United States' low voting rates by devaluing the act of voting. The futility of voting for a congressman in a gerrymandered district or a president in a one-colour state has fundamentally eroded the confidence of the average American in his/her ballot.