Wednesday, June 23, 2004
NY Times vs. Washington Times
When will the media learn that being "balanced" is not the same as being objective? Here's CNN on the media reaction to the corporate tax giveaway recently passed in the House:
So the country's leading paper is "allegedly liberal," while the moonie-controlled Washington Times is merely "allegedly conservative." CNN can take "allegedly unbiased."
The $34 billion corporate tax bill passed last week by the House of Representatives has been called "a masterpiece of bad legislation" by the editors of the allegedly liberal New York Times and "an arbitrary auction of taxpayer money" by the editors of the allegedly conservative Washington Times.
So the country's leading paper is "allegedly liberal," while the moonie-controlled Washington Times is merely "allegedly conservative." CNN can take "allegedly unbiased."
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Another tax cut?
Today the house passed a corporate tax giveaway worth $150 billion. No less than 48 Democrats voted for the bill because of various pork projects included to win their support. The "analyst" on CNN kept bringing up the fact that this is an election year: you can't pull these tricks all the time, but right now those representatives really need to "show they can bring home the bacon." Two things. In the House, every other year is an election year! So he's saying that such tricks work about half the time, which is far too often as far as I'm concerned. Second thing, we keep hearing about how 9 out of 10 house races aren't even competitive. If they have no chance of losing the seat, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's an election year.
The Democrats could take a few lessons from the Republicans when it comes to party unity.
The Democrats could take a few lessons from the Republicans when it comes to party unity.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The real transition
Juan Cole predicts the real significance of the coming transfer of power in Iraq:
The State and Defense Departments have a long history of conflict dating back to the early stages of the Cold War. In the course of the intermittent power struggle between the two agencies, the power of the State Department has gradually declined, while the Pentagon has taken on new responsibilities and gained additional influence. Over the past decade, the Defense Department has expanded enormously in scope, obtaining supervision of many programs not of a strictly military nature, such as nation building, intelligence gathering, and homeland security. As a result, it is predominantly the Pentagon, rather than the State Department, that controls the occupation of Iraq.
Prof. Cole is of the opinion that the State Department, had it had more control over U.S. policy in Iraq, may have managed to avoid many of the costly blunders committed by the Defense Department. State Department officials, for example, have long advocated negotiating with Muqtada al-Sadr, whereas military officials precipitated a long and bitter struggle, perhaps an unnecessary one, by stubbornly insisting that capturing or killing al-Sadr were the only options. Let's hope that Cole is right both that State will assume more power in Iraq after the June 30th transition, and that it will use its power more wisely than Defense.
On June 30, the real transition will be from Defense Department dominance of Iraq to State Department responsibility for Iraq.
The State and Defense Departments have a long history of conflict dating back to the early stages of the Cold War. In the course of the intermittent power struggle between the two agencies, the power of the State Department has gradually declined, while the Pentagon has taken on new responsibilities and gained additional influence. Over the past decade, the Defense Department has expanded enormously in scope, obtaining supervision of many programs not of a strictly military nature, such as nation building, intelligence gathering, and homeland security. As a result, it is predominantly the Pentagon, rather than the State Department, that controls the occupation of Iraq.
Prof. Cole is of the opinion that the State Department, had it had more control over U.S. policy in Iraq, may have managed to avoid many of the costly blunders committed by the Defense Department. State Department officials, for example, have long advocated negotiating with Muqtada al-Sadr, whereas military officials precipitated a long and bitter struggle, perhaps an unnecessary one, by stubbornly insisting that capturing or killing al-Sadr were the only options. Let's hope that Cole is right both that State will assume more power in Iraq after the June 30th transition, and that it will use its power more wisely than Defense.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
October surprise
Everyone's heard the conspiracy theory that Bush & Co. could try and pull an orange/red alert to delay or cancel the presidential election if they believe they are likely to lose. Tradesports recently added contracts for betting on alert levels in each month from now until December. Not much trading has occurred on these, so the figures should be viewed as extremely speculative. Nevertheless, the results are fascinating. Below are the most recent closing prices for red and orange alerts in each month.
For all months other than October and November, this data is remarkably consistent. Red alert is at 2-3% and orange in the range 14-19% every month. Although it is viewed as extremely unlikely, the chance of a red alert in October or November is noticeably higher than in the other months. But the really amazing thing is the chance of an orange alert in October, which at 41% is more than double the chance in any other month!
When you consider the fact that election day is early this year -- November 2nd -- it makes sense that a terror alert is anticipated in October rather than November. According to the trading rules, the day of reckoning is the last day of the month: if you buy a share of orange for the month of October, you are betting that we'll be on Orange alert on October 31st, two days before the election. Likewise for November, it's November 30th, which is four weeks after the election.
There is another, less cynical, but no less alarming interpretation of these figures. Perhaps people are betting that the ugly pattern of 3/11 in Spain will be repeated in this country; Al Qaeda for whatever reason may have an interest in influencing or disrupting U.S. elections, and could be planning a major terror attack for shortly before election day.
I'll be keeping my eye on these trading prices, and will post again if there is any significant change.
| Month | Chance of red alert | Chance of orange alert |
| June | 2.0% | 14% |
| July | 3.0% | 17% |
| August | 2.0% | 18% |
| September | 2.0% | 19% |
| October | 4.5% | 41% |
| November | 4.0% | 17% |
| December | 3.0% | 18% |
For all months other than October and November, this data is remarkably consistent. Red alert is at 2-3% and orange in the range 14-19% every month. Although it is viewed as extremely unlikely, the chance of a red alert in October or November is noticeably higher than in the other months. But the really amazing thing is the chance of an orange alert in October, which at 41% is more than double the chance in any other month!
When you consider the fact that election day is early this year -- November 2nd -- it makes sense that a terror alert is anticipated in October rather than November. According to the trading rules, the day of reckoning is the last day of the month: if you buy a share of orange for the month of October, you are betting that we'll be on Orange alert on October 31st, two days before the election. Likewise for November, it's November 30th, which is four weeks after the election.
There is another, less cynical, but no less alarming interpretation of these figures. Perhaps people are betting that the ugly pattern of 3/11 in Spain will be repeated in this country; Al Qaeda for whatever reason may have an interest in influencing or disrupting U.S. elections, and could be planning a major terror attack for shortly before election day.
I'll be keeping my eye on these trading prices, and will post again if there is any significant change.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Reagan's funeral
Why is it that 95% of the time I can flip between CNN and Fox News (adjacent channels) and they have the exact same camera shot from the exact same angle? They cut to a close-up at exactly the same time. They're obviously buying the camera feed from some third party. Who, I wonder? I've always wondered why competitors in the same line of business seem to become such exact mirror images of each other. Look at the airlines - they all have exactly the same planes, the same beverage service, same meals (now lack of them), same frequent flyer programs, same safety videos, everything. The two competing supermarkets in my area of Berkeley even have the same items on sale week after week. It's almost as if they're afraid of giving people any reason, no matter how small, to switch companies. So when one does something new, they all have to copy it. Doesn't this go against the spirit of capitalism? If competing businesses are all offering me exactly the same service, choosing between them is meaningless.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Reagan dead at 93
Ronald Reagan died today. For a very different perspective on his presidency, check out "Reagan's Liberal Legacy" (yep you read that right!), thanks to Kevin Drum for the pointer. I especially like the part about how all the obituaries, tributes and whatnot were written months in advance.
Friday, June 04, 2004
Senate races in red states
This year's competitive senate races are nearly all in red states: Alaska, Colorado, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana and the Carolinas. So naturally, we're going to see a lot of Democrats positioning themselves uncomfortably far to the right. Witness Tony Knowles, Alaska's Democratic Senate candidate, defending himself from "attacks" alleging that he is not sufficiently supportive of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; or Tom Daschle's support for a bill which would have granted gun manufacturers blanket immunity from civil lawsuits.
Maybe this sort of thing happens every election cycle. After all, there are more red states than blue states. Al Gore carried 20 states and DC in 2000 to Bush's 30 states. Since the blue states are more populous, the two groups are roughly equal in electoral votes. But in the senate, where every state is represented equally, the Democrats need to pick up at least a half dozen seats in red states just to get to 50-50.
Back to the Odd Hours main page
Maybe this sort of thing happens every election cycle. After all, there are more red states than blue states. Al Gore carried 20 states and DC in 2000 to Bush's 30 states. Since the blue states are more populous, the two groups are roughly equal in electoral votes. But in the senate, where every state is represented equally, the Democrats need to pick up at least a half dozen seats in red states just to get to 50-50.
© 2004 Odd Hours
Reproduction permitted provided Odd Hours or the author of the quoted post is credited.