The latest issue of the New York Review of Books is now online and Brian Urquhart has a review of "America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism" by Anatol Lieven. But instead of traditional linear analysis of nationalist tendencies, Lieven expands his focus to include discussions about U.S. policy in the Middle East, and especially the role of anti-Enlightenment ideology in current political battles:
In his recent book on the Scottish Enlightenment James Buchan writes of Edinburgh in the early eighteenth century, "Men and women were coming to suspect that knowledge acquired through skepticism might be more useful in this world below than knowledge 'revealed' by scripture." It is a painful thought that in the United States in the twenty-first century we might be turning away from the world of the Enlightenment which inspired the Founding Fathers. Of all the thoughts provoked by Lieven's book this is the most disturbing, both for America and for the world. Since religious freedom and popular elections are both sacrosanct rights of the American people, it is a particularly delicate one. Is it possible that America could eventually vote to go back on the Enlightenment?
Evangelical Protestants are a large and growing group whose influence is greatly enhanced by their voting discipline in comparison to other groups. Their influence is evident both in the rhetoric and in some actions of the current administration, as well as in Congress. This is clear in many domestic issues. The absolutes of Good and Evil, the references to God's will in relation to adventures like the Iraq war, the idea that those who are not with us are against us, impose a rigidity that dismisses criticism and makes it impossible to admit reverses publicly or to correct mistaken policies. Such trends are a serious hazard for such a powerful and important country. And at home, the demonization of elites, anti-intellectualism, hostility to rational discourse, and an aversion to scientific method can only stultify and downgrade the educational system at a time when American leadership and technological supremacy are being challenged as never before.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Short-Term Memory and State of the Union
Like most of you, I watched the pundit classes after the State of the Union Address. Many focused on the vocal Democratic dissent, stating that is was "unseemly," and even the reserved Mark Shields on the PBS News Hour commented that the opposition sounded like the British Parliament.
Really? I remember other occasions where the GOP acted as "poorly" as the Democrats last night, and I see that Atrios has compiled a list of news reports today from Clinton's various State of the Union speeches. The chattering classes do indeed have very short-term memory:
1999: Republicans Booed Clinton's Entrance. Many Republican lawmakers gave him a cool, though not impolite, reception.There were a smattering of boos when Clinton first entered the Housechamber, but they were quickly drowned out by applause. Some Republicans barely applauded, or refused at all to clap. House Majority Leader DickArmey (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) were conspicuously silent.[Boston Herald, 1/20/99]
1998: Republicans Booed Clinton's Medicare ProposalClinton's health-care initiatives, chiefly in the form of a medical bill ofrights, found support on both sides, especially his attack on managed-carehealth-care plans. ... Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare to allow Americans as young as 55 to buy into the system drew shouts of "no" and some boos from Republicans during his speech. [Chicago Tribune, 1/28/98]
1997: Republican's Booed Clinton's Opposition to the Balanced Budget Amendment. The Republican response was far warmer than perhaps any of Clinton'sprevious four State of the Union speeches. Time after time, Republicans jumped to their feet to join Democrats in applauding the president. Only once did they unmistakably and collectively show their disapproval--when Clinton spoke disparagingly of a GOP-sponsored constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many Republicans hissed and some booed. [LA Times,2/5/97]
1995: Republicans Booed Clinton and Walked Out During Speech. The upheaval wrought by the Republican election landslide was visible throughout the president's State of the Union address - from the moment Speaker Newt Gingrich took the gavel to the striking silence that often greeted Clinton from the GOP. At one point, Republicans even booed. About 20 of them left as Clinton went on and on for an hour and 20 minutes. [AP,1/24/95]
Really? I remember other occasions where the GOP acted as "poorly" as the Democrats last night, and I see that Atrios has compiled a list of news reports today from Clinton's various State of the Union speeches. The chattering classes do indeed have very short-term memory:
1999: Republicans Booed Clinton's Entrance. Many Republican lawmakers gave him a cool, though not impolite, reception.There were a smattering of boos when Clinton first entered the Housechamber, but they were quickly drowned out by applause. Some Republicans barely applauded, or refused at all to clap. House Majority Leader DickArmey (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) were conspicuously silent.[Boston Herald, 1/20/99]
1998: Republicans Booed Clinton's Medicare ProposalClinton's health-care initiatives, chiefly in the form of a medical bill ofrights, found support on both sides, especially his attack on managed-carehealth-care plans. ... Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare to allow Americans as young as 55 to buy into the system drew shouts of "no" and some boos from Republicans during his speech. [Chicago Tribune, 1/28/98]
1997: Republican's Booed Clinton's Opposition to the Balanced Budget Amendment. The Republican response was far warmer than perhaps any of Clinton'sprevious four State of the Union speeches. Time after time, Republicans jumped to their feet to join Democrats in applauding the president. Only once did they unmistakably and collectively show their disapproval--when Clinton spoke disparagingly of a GOP-sponsored constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many Republicans hissed and some booed. [LA Times,2/5/97]
1995: Republicans Booed Clinton and Walked Out During Speech. The upheaval wrought by the Republican election landslide was visible throughout the president's State of the Union address - from the moment Speaker Newt Gingrich took the gavel to the striking silence that often greeted Clinton from the GOP. At one point, Republicans even booed. About 20 of them left as Clinton went on and on for an hour and 20 minutes. [AP,1/24/95]
Yes, But Can They Hear You?
Today's technology section at the NYT reports that senior citizens are picking up on all the annoying habits of their grandkids, including the ubiquitous cellphone (that's the 'mobile' for you British readers):
Long after cellphones became an annoyance in movie theaters and restaurants, the incessant ringing turned up at an unexpected place: the Holiday Park Senior Center in Wheaton, Md., near Washington.
It started about a year ago, when musical performances and lectures began to be interrupted regularly. The problem got so bad that the 600 people who come daily for various programs had to be reminded to turn off their phones.
"Some doctor would be talking about a disease and a cellphone would start ringing," said Phil Smakula, a supervisor for the county's programs for the elderly and the center's former director. "Most of the time they weren't exactly urgent calls. They were making plans to go to the movies or have dinner with a neighbor."
The cellphone, once viewed by older people solely as a device for use in emergencies, is becoming an everyday convenience. Encouraged by inexpensive calling plans, older Americans are using cellphones to call their grandchildren at college, or to set up a bridge game at their retirement community.
Long after cellphones became an annoyance in movie theaters and restaurants, the incessant ringing turned up at an unexpected place: the Holiday Park Senior Center in Wheaton, Md., near Washington.
It started about a year ago, when musical performances and lectures began to be interrupted regularly. The problem got so bad that the 600 people who come daily for various programs had to be reminded to turn off their phones.
"Some doctor would be talking about a disease and a cellphone would start ringing," said Phil Smakula, a supervisor for the county's programs for the elderly and the center's former director. "Most of the time they weren't exactly urgent calls. They were making plans to go to the movies or have dinner with a neighbor."
The cellphone, once viewed by older people solely as a device for use in emergencies, is becoming an everyday convenience. Encouraged by inexpensive calling plans, older Americans are using cellphones to call their grandchildren at college, or to set up a bridge game at their retirement community.
But All the Other Kids are Doing It
Michelle Leder at Footnoted.org (always recommended) finds another case of corporate "monkey see, monkey do." Seems when it comes to corporate management compensation, the sine curve is getting less steep every day:
Remember when you were growing up and your friends did something dopey and your mom would inevitably tell you, "If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?" At Aon Corp. (AOC) the answer appears to be yes. In a recent 8-K, the company disclosed a new "executive special severance plan" that will pay 11 of its most senior executives three times their base salary plus gross-up payments and a whole host of other goodies following a change in control, which the company stresses is just a hypothetical situation. The reasoning? A consultant Aon hired determined that 90% of all other publicly traded companies have similar arrangments. A second group of executives -- the company only describes them in the filing as fewer than 100 -- will only receive two years worth of salary and no gross-up payments.
Remember when you were growing up and your friends did something dopey and your mom would inevitably tell you, "If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?" At Aon Corp. (AOC) the answer appears to be yes. In a recent 8-K, the company disclosed a new "executive special severance plan" that will pay 11 of its most senior executives three times their base salary plus gross-up payments and a whole host of other goodies following a change in control, which the company stresses is just a hypothetical situation. The reasoning? A consultant Aon hired determined that 90% of all other publicly traded companies have similar arrangments. A second group of executives -- the company only describes them in the filing as fewer than 100 -- will only receive two years worth of salary and no gross-up payments.
Stone Age Legacies?
Today's LAT has a front page article on the Onge tribe's struggles to survive in the wake of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, which is commendable, but the Times staff writer falls into the old rhetorical trap of assuming that hunter-gatherer societies encompass an unchanging glimpse into the paleolithic past:
The Onge are one of five endangered hunter-gatherer tribes that have lived for tens of thousands of years in the forests of India's far-flung Andaman and Nicobar Islands, where the pressures of modern development have threatened to wipe them out.
But wait, further on the author gives us some more background on assimilation pressures, alongside a pathetically romantic retort to a wall "against time's advance" (spare me).
Experts on the tribes say the government's help was the kind that could do more harm than good. They have become familiar with the risks through the archipelago's history of intrusions, beginning with a British penal colony 150 years ago and, a decade later, the first logging of the islands' hardwood.
For centuries, the rain forest was the Onge's provider and protector. It fed them wild boar, hunted with poison-tipped arrows, as well as jackfruit and the honey of giant rock bees. The trees shielded them against time's advance.
For decades, Indian governments sought to bring the tribes into what officials called the mainstream. Critics say the policy was intended to remove the tribal people and their reserves, as obstacles to logging.When India opened a third of the Onge's rain forest reserve to logging in the early 1970s, it also launched an ambitious effort to change thousands of years of Onge tradition.
Over twenty years ago the late Eric Wolf put to rest notions that indigenous hunter/gatherer groups were untouched by colonial expansion prior to European recognition in his influential book Europe and the People Without History. Thomas Headland and other participants in the "Great Foragers Debate" of the 1990s concluded that hunter/gatherer groups were able to maintain their existence through contact and trade with surrounding groups, including state-level societies. Rather than mere anachronistic models of Holocene humanity, such groups were actively adapting to ecological and political developments in their immediate vicinity. While most anthropologists recognize the damage that modern development can have on the survivability of such groups (see Cultural Survival for examples), I wince whenever people assume that such societies are somehow less "developed" than our own, with all the subtextual hierarchies that entails.
The Onge are one of five endangered hunter-gatherer tribes that have lived for tens of thousands of years in the forests of India's far-flung Andaman and Nicobar Islands, where the pressures of modern development have threatened to wipe them out.
But wait, further on the author gives us some more background on assimilation pressures, alongside a pathetically romantic retort to a wall "against time's advance" (spare me).
Experts on the tribes say the government's help was the kind that could do more harm than good. They have become familiar with the risks through the archipelago's history of intrusions, beginning with a British penal colony 150 years ago and, a decade later, the first logging of the islands' hardwood.
For centuries, the rain forest was the Onge's provider and protector. It fed them wild boar, hunted with poison-tipped arrows, as well as jackfruit and the honey of giant rock bees. The trees shielded them against time's advance.
For decades, Indian governments sought to bring the tribes into what officials called the mainstream. Critics say the policy was intended to remove the tribal people and their reserves, as obstacles to logging.When India opened a third of the Onge's rain forest reserve to logging in the early 1970s, it also launched an ambitious effort to change thousands of years of Onge tradition.
Over twenty years ago the late Eric Wolf put to rest notions that indigenous hunter/gatherer groups were untouched by colonial expansion prior to European recognition in his influential book Europe and the People Without History. Thomas Headland and other participants in the "Great Foragers Debate" of the 1990s concluded that hunter/gatherer groups were able to maintain their existence through contact and trade with surrounding groups, including state-level societies. Rather than mere anachronistic models of Holocene humanity, such groups were actively adapting to ecological and political developments in their immediate vicinity. While most anthropologists recognize the damage that modern development can have on the survivability of such groups (see Cultural Survival for examples), I wince whenever people assume that such societies are somehow less "developed" than our own, with all the subtextual hierarchies that entails.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Sour Varietals
Glad to see that the NYT food section covers old lemon varietals and hybrids which are finding a new niche market on the other side of the country. But if you really want to see how different many citrus crops are out there, go to the University of California Riverside Citrus Collection, which details hundreds of varietals. There was a time in California (during my father's childhood) when diversity was the norm in silviculture, including lots of different kinds of avocados and olives. (And this would also include the not-so-ancient art of smudge pot fires during cold snaps.) The citrus thing is a bit personal in my family: I grew up in a home with two avocado trees, a plum tree, and a lemon tree in the backyard, and my grandparent's home had avocado, tangerine, lemon, lime, and fig trees. Landscaping just isn't any good unless you can eat it too.
Long-Haired (Counter) Revolutionaries
This has been all over the wires this morning, but it's too good to pass up. Leave it to the Socialist Hermit Kingdom to come up with tragic humor like this:
Feb. 1, 2005 Seoul, South Korea -- The order to shaggy-haired North Korean men couldn't be clearer: Get a trim like Kim. The reclusive communist country is waging a hair war, telling its male population to lose the long locks, cut the coiffures and mow the mane to conform to "socialist style" -- no longer than two inches.
Even hair-challenged, authoritarian leader Kim Jong Il has trimmed his famous pompadour. One exception, however: Comradely comb-overs are OK for older men.
The short-hair campaign actually was launched in October, but it reached new lengths Monday when state-run Central TV began ridiculing nonconformists as unhygienic, anti-socialist fools. It comes as North Korea's dictatorship struggles to tighten its control over information, monitor its population and dictate cultural tastes.
State TV even derided violators of the order by name and address, calling them "blind followers of bourgeois lifestyle," and exposing them to jeers from other citizens.
"We cannot help questioning the cultural taste of this comrade, who is incapable of feeling ashamed of his hair style," the station said Monday, showing a man identified as Ko Gwang Hyun, whose unkempt hair covered his ears.
"Can we expect a man with this disheveled mind-set to perform his duty well?" the announcer asked.
North Koreans have never been known for mop tops, but the campaign -- dubbed "Let's Trim Our Hair According to Socialist Lifestyle" -- suggests that popular tastes have changed recently.
Feb. 1, 2005 Seoul, South Korea -- The order to shaggy-haired North Korean men couldn't be clearer: Get a trim like Kim. The reclusive communist country is waging a hair war, telling its male population to lose the long locks, cut the coiffures and mow the mane to conform to "socialist style" -- no longer than two inches.
Even hair-challenged, authoritarian leader Kim Jong Il has trimmed his famous pompadour. One exception, however: Comradely comb-overs are OK for older men.
The short-hair campaign actually was launched in October, but it reached new lengths Monday when state-run Central TV began ridiculing nonconformists as unhygienic, anti-socialist fools. It comes as North Korea's dictatorship struggles to tighten its control over information, monitor its population and dictate cultural tastes.
State TV even derided violators of the order by name and address, calling them "blind followers of bourgeois lifestyle," and exposing them to jeers from other citizens.
"We cannot help questioning the cultural taste of this comrade, who is incapable of feeling ashamed of his hair style," the station said Monday, showing a man identified as Ko Gwang Hyun, whose unkempt hair covered his ears.
"Can we expect a man with this disheveled mind-set to perform his duty well?" the announcer asked.
North Koreans have never been known for mop tops, but the campaign -- dubbed "Let's Trim Our Hair According to Socialist Lifestyle" -- suggests that popular tastes have changed recently.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Inside the Testing Burrito
There is more than a bit of populist truth in the phrase, "Never watch your burrito being made," especially when it comes to bureaucracies and education (all flies and vermin). I see that the NYT has a prominent article on the new SAT test format which includes revamped reading and math sections and a much-discussed new essay section. All this hits home with your truly, since I used to supervise SAT tests at a local community college and currently work in an educational testing/assessment office. So in my down time today I cruised over to Collegeboard.com and looked around the research reports page. More commentary on this will come, but you might want to glance at the summary document "The Research Behind the New SAT" (RS-11, January 2005), especially near the end under the heading "Predictive Validity of the New SAT." You will find the following assessment:
While the scores on the new SAT writing section were slightly better than high school grades in predicting first-year college grades (.46 versus .43), the SAT writing scores were slightly worse than high school grades in predicting English Composition course grades (.32 versus .35).
In the literature, we say these r values have a low to moderate degree of correlation. I'm sure that will be of comfort to college applicants this coming spring.
While the scores on the new SAT writing section were slightly better than high school grades in predicting first-year college grades (.46 versus .43), the SAT writing scores were slightly worse than high school grades in predicting English Composition course grades (.32 versus .35).
In the literature, we say these r values have a low to moderate degree of correlation. I'm sure that will be of comfort to college applicants this coming spring.
How to Lose Your Country - Part II
Today's NYT Science section reports on the creeping specter of creationism in the nation's biology classrooms:
There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that all living things evolved from common ancestors, that evolution on earth has been going on for billions of years and that evolution can be and has been tested and confirmed by the methods of science. But in a 2001 survey, the National Science Foundation found that only 53 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."
And this was good news to the foundation. It was the first time one of its regular surveys showed a majority of Americans had accepted the idea. According to the foundation report, polls consistently show that a plurality of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, and about two-thirds believe that this belief should be taught along with evolution in public schools.
These findings set the United States apart from all other industrialized nations, said Dr. Jon Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University, who has studied public attitudes toward science. Americans, he said, have been evenly divided for years on the question of evolution, with about 45 percent accepting it, 45 percent rejecting it and the rest undecided.
In other industrialized countries, Dr. Miller said, 80 percent or more typically accept evolution, most of the others say they are not sure and very few people reject the idea outright.
"In Japan, something like 96 percent accept evolution," he said. Even in socially conservative, predominantly Catholic countries like Poland, perhaps 75 percent of people surveyed accept evolution, he said. "It has not been a Catholic issue or an Asian issue," he said.
Indeed, two popes, Pius XII in 1950 and John Paul II in 1996, have endorsed the idea that evolution and religion can coexist. "I have yet to meet a Catholic school teacher who skips evolution," Dr. Scott said.
Still, why cram those little minds full of useless trivia like natural history, mathematics, civics, literature, and rational thought? Given the widely-publicized survey of high school students released yesterday, I'm sure that most of them will think that natural selection is an "overblown" theory, much like what they already think about the First Amendment and the right of dissent. The adults aren't much better either - the NSF survey shows just how little the national gray matter is being used and, not surprisingly, also provides for an explanation of prime-time network television.
Postscript: The AA went to a Catholic high school and was taught biology by religious brothers, none of whom gave any credence whatsoever to creationist theories.
There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that all living things evolved from common ancestors, that evolution on earth has been going on for billions of years and that evolution can be and has been tested and confirmed by the methods of science. But in a 2001 survey, the National Science Foundation found that only 53 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."
And this was good news to the foundation. It was the first time one of its regular surveys showed a majority of Americans had accepted the idea. According to the foundation report, polls consistently show that a plurality of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, and about two-thirds believe that this belief should be taught along with evolution in public schools.
These findings set the United States apart from all other industrialized nations, said Dr. Jon Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University, who has studied public attitudes toward science. Americans, he said, have been evenly divided for years on the question of evolution, with about 45 percent accepting it, 45 percent rejecting it and the rest undecided.
In other industrialized countries, Dr. Miller said, 80 percent or more typically accept evolution, most of the others say they are not sure and very few people reject the idea outright.
"In Japan, something like 96 percent accept evolution," he said. Even in socially conservative, predominantly Catholic countries like Poland, perhaps 75 percent of people surveyed accept evolution, he said. "It has not been a Catholic issue or an Asian issue," he said.
Indeed, two popes, Pius XII in 1950 and John Paul II in 1996, have endorsed the idea that evolution and religion can coexist. "I have yet to meet a Catholic school teacher who skips evolution," Dr. Scott said.
Still, why cram those little minds full of useless trivia like natural history, mathematics, civics, literature, and rational thought? Given the widely-publicized survey of high school students released yesterday, I'm sure that most of them will think that natural selection is an "overblown" theory, much like what they already think about the First Amendment and the right of dissent. The adults aren't much better either - the NSF survey shows just how little the national gray matter is being used and, not surprisingly, also provides for an explanation of prime-time network television.
Postscript: The AA went to a Catholic high school and was taught biology by religious brothers, none of whom gave any credence whatsoever to creationist theories.
Exit Poll Diagnostics
Mitchell Rofsky over at Common Dreams has gone through Presidential Election Exit Polls and finds some trends which run counter to the "received knowledge" of the pundit classes:
However, a closer reading of Presidential Election Exit Polls back to at least 1996 reveals that nearly everything you’ve been told about them--and almost all the advice the Democrats are now being given--is wrong.
Liberalism is becoming less popular. WRONG!
1. Since 1996, the percentage of voters identifying themselves as Liberal has increased by 1% (to 21%) while Conservatives have also increased by 1% (to 34%).
2. The percentage of the electorate that considers the key conservative economic issue, “Taxes”, the most important issue dropped from 15% in 1996 to 5% in 2004. Even excluding Iraq and Terrorism, the salience of Taxes would have fallen to 7.6% of 2004 voters.
3. Liberalism is dependent on the popularity of the federal government. Since 1992, the percentage of people who believe the federal government should do more has increased from 39% to 46% while the number who believe it should do less has declined from 55% to 49%.
4. Based on the Issue responses, if 9/11 had never happened, Kerry would have won the election, 52/47%. This has to be taken with a grain of salt as Democrats often win on “issues” but lose elections. Still, it calls into question the post-election advice regarding the unpopularity of the Democratic message.
Democrats can’t win because they are on the “wrong” side of the social issues, popularly known as “God, Gays, and Guns “. WRONG!
These social issues may have been determinative in a number of states (Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida) and, given our state-based electoral system, cannot be ignored, but as national trends they are either static or losing ground.
5. Since 1996, the percentage of the vote that is Catholic and Protestant has declined by 2%, while the percentages of voters with Other Religions and No Religion increased by 4%. (Protestants are becoming more evangelical, but Protestants were already the base of the Republican Party.)
6. Since 2000, the percentage of voters who attend church monthly or more stayed the same, while the number who seldom or never attend went up 1%.
7. Pro-choice beats anti-abortion 55%/42%. (Although, since 1992, the percentage who believe that abortion should always be legal has dropped from 35% to 21%, probably due to the debate on partial-birth abortion.)
8. The support for gay marriage or civil unions actually trumps the opposition by “landslide” margins: 60%/37%.
9. Bush won over half the voters (52%) who said they favored civil unions.
10. The percentage of households who own guns has dropped from 48% to 41% since 2000. (Kerry improved on Gore’s percentage among gun owners, indicating that his effort on this issue paid off.)
11. The Democrat’s military problem may be deeper than their “God, Gays, and Guns” problem. Kerry actually won the vote of the 82% of the people who have never served. But he lost the vote of the remaining 18% by 57%/41% or 3.5 million votes, virtually the final margin. (How did the military vote in 2000? The question wasn’t asked.)
Bush won the election because he increased his small town and rural percentages while younger voters did not turn out for Kerry! WRONG!
12. According to these polls, Bush didn’t improve his percentages in small towns and rural areas from 2000. (Of course, turnout increased.) Meanwhile the rural vote, while Republican, is declining.
13. Younger voters did turn out, but everybody turned out. It’s hard for liberals to fault younger voters; they were the only age group that Kerry won. Meanwhile, Bush improved his vote among all other age groups, but especially the 24% of voters over 60, where he improved by 7% or nearly 2 million votes.
Bush’s increase among Hispanics was critical to his victory. WRONG!
14. The trend in the Hispanic vote is important for the future. But Hispanics were not the key to this victory. While 6% of Hispanics moved toward the President (other Exit Polls say it’s a bit less), Hispanics only represent 8% of the electorate (up from 3.2% in 1992). This move by Hispanics only represents a little over half a million voters, enough to help Bush erase his deficit to Gore, but not much else.
Bush’s edge over Kerry rose broadly in the battleground states as turnout increased. WRONG!
15. Bush’s percentages increased narrowly in the battleground states: Bush increased by 23%, Kerry by 21%. In the safe Bush states, Bush was up 21%, Kerry 12%. The key to Bush’s margin was actually the safe Kerry states where Bush was up 16%, Kerry only 5%. Did this result from the fact that 9/11 happened to directly impact residents of blue states (NY, NJ, PA, DC)? Was it the lack of effort of a Kerry campaign focused on the battleground states? The natural edge of incumbency? The exit polls can’t help us.
However, a closer reading of Presidential Election Exit Polls back to at least 1996 reveals that nearly everything you’ve been told about them--and almost all the advice the Democrats are now being given--is wrong.
Liberalism is becoming less popular. WRONG!
1. Since 1996, the percentage of voters identifying themselves as Liberal has increased by 1% (to 21%) while Conservatives have also increased by 1% (to 34%).
2. The percentage of the electorate that considers the key conservative economic issue, “Taxes”, the most important issue dropped from 15% in 1996 to 5% in 2004. Even excluding Iraq and Terrorism, the salience of Taxes would have fallen to 7.6% of 2004 voters.
3. Liberalism is dependent on the popularity of the federal government. Since 1992, the percentage of people who believe the federal government should do more has increased from 39% to 46% while the number who believe it should do less has declined from 55% to 49%.
4. Based on the Issue responses, if 9/11 had never happened, Kerry would have won the election, 52/47%. This has to be taken with a grain of salt as Democrats often win on “issues” but lose elections. Still, it calls into question the post-election advice regarding the unpopularity of the Democratic message.
Democrats can’t win because they are on the “wrong” side of the social issues, popularly known as “God, Gays, and Guns “. WRONG!
These social issues may have been determinative in a number of states (Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida) and, given our state-based electoral system, cannot be ignored, but as national trends they are either static or losing ground.
5. Since 1996, the percentage of the vote that is Catholic and Protestant has declined by 2%, while the percentages of voters with Other Religions and No Religion increased by 4%. (Protestants are becoming more evangelical, but Protestants were already the base of the Republican Party.)
6. Since 2000, the percentage of voters who attend church monthly or more stayed the same, while the number who seldom or never attend went up 1%.
7. Pro-choice beats anti-abortion 55%/42%. (Although, since 1992, the percentage who believe that abortion should always be legal has dropped from 35% to 21%, probably due to the debate on partial-birth abortion.)
8. The support for gay marriage or civil unions actually trumps the opposition by “landslide” margins: 60%/37%.
9. Bush won over half the voters (52%) who said they favored civil unions.
10. The percentage of households who own guns has dropped from 48% to 41% since 2000. (Kerry improved on Gore’s percentage among gun owners, indicating that his effort on this issue paid off.)
11. The Democrat’s military problem may be deeper than their “God, Gays, and Guns” problem. Kerry actually won the vote of the 82% of the people who have never served. But he lost the vote of the remaining 18% by 57%/41% or 3.5 million votes, virtually the final margin. (How did the military vote in 2000? The question wasn’t asked.)
Bush won the election because he increased his small town and rural percentages while younger voters did not turn out for Kerry! WRONG!
12. According to these polls, Bush didn’t improve his percentages in small towns and rural areas from 2000. (Of course, turnout increased.) Meanwhile the rural vote, while Republican, is declining.
13. Younger voters did turn out, but everybody turned out. It’s hard for liberals to fault younger voters; they were the only age group that Kerry won. Meanwhile, Bush improved his vote among all other age groups, but especially the 24% of voters over 60, where he improved by 7% or nearly 2 million votes.
Bush’s increase among Hispanics was critical to his victory. WRONG!
14. The trend in the Hispanic vote is important for the future. But Hispanics were not the key to this victory. While 6% of Hispanics moved toward the President (other Exit Polls say it’s a bit less), Hispanics only represent 8% of the electorate (up from 3.2% in 1992). This move by Hispanics only represents a little over half a million voters, enough to help Bush erase his deficit to Gore, but not much else.
Bush’s edge over Kerry rose broadly in the battleground states as turnout increased. WRONG!
15. Bush’s percentages increased narrowly in the battleground states: Bush increased by 23%, Kerry by 21%. In the safe Bush states, Bush was up 21%, Kerry 12%. The key to Bush’s margin was actually the safe Kerry states where Bush was up 16%, Kerry only 5%. Did this result from the fact that 9/11 happened to directly impact residents of blue states (NY, NJ, PA, DC)? Was it the lack of effort of a Kerry campaign focused on the battleground states? The natural edge of incumbency? The exit polls can’t help us.
Cerebral Reading
Inside Higher Ed has been out for several weeks in beta format, but beginning today Scott McLemee gets to wear his new title, "Essayist at Large" with his column Intellectual Affairs.
Marriage, Money, Fraud
From the marriage and kinship files the Pacific New Service reports that some Indian immigrants in the U.S. are falling victim to dowry fraud:
But the abuse of anti-dowry laws has become serious enough that the United States Department of State has published a travel warning about "Dowry/Visa Demands" for travelers to India. The warning states in part: "A number of U.S. citizen men who have come to India to marry Indian nationals have been arrested and charged with crimes related to dowry extraction ... The courts sometimes order the U.S. citizen to pay large sums of money to his spouse in exchange for the dismissal of charges. The courts normally confiscate the American's passport, and he must remain in India until the case has been settled."
The State Department cannot say how many false complaints are filed each year. However, "The fact that we issued a warning should be an indication of how widespread the problem is," says John Peters, the department's citizen services specialist for India.
But the abuse of anti-dowry laws has become serious enough that the United States Department of State has published a travel warning about "Dowry/Visa Demands" for travelers to India. The warning states in part: "A number of U.S. citizen men who have come to India to marry Indian nationals have been arrested and charged with crimes related to dowry extraction ... The courts sometimes order the U.S. citizen to pay large sums of money to his spouse in exchange for the dismissal of charges. The courts normally confiscate the American's passport, and he must remain in India until the case has been settled."
The State Department cannot say how many false complaints are filed each year. However, "The fact that we issued a warning should be an indication of how widespread the problem is," says John Peters, the department's citizen services specialist for India.
Monday, January 31, 2005
The Mirror of History
Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly posts this ominous article from years past. While the analogy to current events is not one-to-one, it is eerie:
September 3, 1967
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.
September 3, 1967
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.
How To Lose Your Country
With the votes still being tallied in Iraq, the AP reports on a large study of high school students and administrators that shows us how apathetic and ignorant they are. This is so important, I'm quoting it in its entirety:
Jan. 31, 2005 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.
It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.
The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.
"These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future."
The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.
When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.
The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn't know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.
Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.
"Schools don't do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don't know the rights it protects," Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. "This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment."
The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues.
Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17, the date it was signed in 1787.
The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
Students who take part in school media activities, such as a student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.
About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.
More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.
"The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media," said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. "Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms."
And educated people still wonder why Bush won the election.
Jan. 31, 2005 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.
It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.
The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.
"These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future."
The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.
When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.
The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn't know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.
Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.
"Schools don't do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don't know the rights it protects," Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. "This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment."
The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues.
Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17, the date it was signed in 1787.
The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
Students who take part in school media activities, such as a student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.
About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.
More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.
"The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media," said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. "Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms."
And educated people still wonder why Bush won the election.
Creativity and the Computer
Yesterday's NYT has an article by Steven Johnson on using text coding and query software for creative writers. Some, like Stefanie at So Many Books, wonder if relying on the computer will eventually dull the creative process, as associations in the text are linked with the click of the mouse. Johnson, however, is more positive:
IF these tools do get adopted, will they affect the kinds of books and essays people write? I suspect they might, because they are not as helpful to narratives or linear arguments; they're associative tools ultimately. They don't do cause-and-effect as well as they do ''x reminds me of y.'' So they're ideally suited for books organized around ideas rather than single narrative threads: more ''Lives of a Cell'' and ''The Tipping Point'' than ''Seabiscuit.''
No doubt some will say that these tools remind them of the way they use Google already, and the comparison is apt. (One of the new applications that came out last year was Google Desktop -- using the search engine's tools to filter through your personal files.) But there's a fundamental difference between searching a universe of documents created by strangers and searching your own personal library. When you're freewheeling through ideas that you yourself have collated -- particularly when you'd long ago forgotten about them -- there's something about the experience that seems uncannily like freewheeling through the corridors of your own memory. It feels like thinking.
Reading this I thought about the role of fieldnotes in cultural anthropology. Anthropologists come back from the field with mountains of notes (one old-time professor I know has almost 10,000 single-spaced typed pages collected over the many years he has worked in one Mexican village), and so were early adopters of computerized coding software (for instance, I use ATLAS /Ti to code, query, and retrieve some of my notes, and heartily recommend it). But instead of relying on the software to assist us in the cognitive process of classifying and analyzing, coding software is most often used to test conjectures about your data. The types of fieldnotes, clippings, video, and diary entries collected during fieldwork are simply too great to all be imported into fieldnote software packages, whereas for directed studies, such as qualitative projects including interviews or survey data, these packages make sense. My hunch is that for creative writers, the well of inspiration and notes from which they draw upon is simply too diffuse and deep to scan into one of these programs and, like their cultural anthropology counterparts, the creative process is best left to the chaotic assemblage of jottings, outlines, and mental walks that help the writer to find his/her best voice.
IF these tools do get adopted, will they affect the kinds of books and essays people write? I suspect they might, because they are not as helpful to narratives or linear arguments; they're associative tools ultimately. They don't do cause-and-effect as well as they do ''x reminds me of y.'' So they're ideally suited for books organized around ideas rather than single narrative threads: more ''Lives of a Cell'' and ''The Tipping Point'' than ''Seabiscuit.''
No doubt some will say that these tools remind them of the way they use Google already, and the comparison is apt. (One of the new applications that came out last year was Google Desktop -- using the search engine's tools to filter through your personal files.) But there's a fundamental difference between searching a universe of documents created by strangers and searching your own personal library. When you're freewheeling through ideas that you yourself have collated -- particularly when you'd long ago forgotten about them -- there's something about the experience that seems uncannily like freewheeling through the corridors of your own memory. It feels like thinking.
Reading this I thought about the role of fieldnotes in cultural anthropology. Anthropologists come back from the field with mountains of notes (one old-time professor I know has almost 10,000 single-spaced typed pages collected over the many years he has worked in one Mexican village), and so were early adopters of computerized coding software (for instance, I use ATLAS /Ti to code, query, and retrieve some of my notes, and heartily recommend it). But instead of relying on the software to assist us in the cognitive process of classifying and analyzing, coding software is most often used to test conjectures about your data. The types of fieldnotes, clippings, video, and diary entries collected during fieldwork are simply too great to all be imported into fieldnote software packages, whereas for directed studies, such as qualitative projects including interviews or survey data, these packages make sense. My hunch is that for creative writers, the well of inspiration and notes from which they draw upon is simply too diffuse and deep to scan into one of these programs and, like their cultural anthropology counterparts, the creative process is best left to the chaotic assemblage of jottings, outlines, and mental walks that help the writer to find his/her best voice.
Modernity's Little Helpers
Once upon a time addiction was a term reserved for good old-fashioned chemical abuse. Now, it seems that the modern condition has fostered a new batch of neuroses and addictions upon the unsuspecting. The Observer interviews five "new" addicts in their weekend coverage:
Dependence, devotion, compulsion, addiction, fixation, obsession and habit are words that psychologists could well spend the whole 21st century debating and refining their definitions of. Some believe that almost anything one does, outside the humdrum - and even including the humdrum - is done as a solace or in order to avoid neurotic disorder. Smoking or sucking a pencil brings both comfort and avoids discomfort.
But the modern world (and longer life) offers or alerts us to more and more potential pleasures and displeasures; more things to stay focused on but more to be distracted by; more to buy and more not to afford; more chances to express individuality and yet more immersion in the crowd; more chances of intimacy and more of distance; more to withdraw from and more to suffer withdrawal symptoms from; more to be sensitised by but more to be de-sensitised by... simply more opportunities and more opportunities missed.
In the 21st century maybe most of us are - or will become - 'addicts' and it's just a matter of degree. And in the five 'addicts' on the following pages we may recognise parts of ourselves, may envy or fear their focus or devotion, may find what we wish to avoid, or what we are missing.
And what are these 21st Century addictions? Sushi, Viagra, surgery, text messaging, and online dating. All soon to be added to the DSM IV, no doubt.
Dependence, devotion, compulsion, addiction, fixation, obsession and habit are words that psychologists could well spend the whole 21st century debating and refining their definitions of. Some believe that almost anything one does, outside the humdrum - and even including the humdrum - is done as a solace or in order to avoid neurotic disorder. Smoking or sucking a pencil brings both comfort and avoids discomfort.
But the modern world (and longer life) offers or alerts us to more and more potential pleasures and displeasures; more things to stay focused on but more to be distracted by; more to buy and more not to afford; more chances to express individuality and yet more immersion in the crowd; more chances of intimacy and more of distance; more to withdraw from and more to suffer withdrawal symptoms from; more to be sensitised by but more to be de-sensitised by... simply more opportunities and more opportunities missed.
In the 21st century maybe most of us are - or will become - 'addicts' and it's just a matter of degree. And in the five 'addicts' on the following pages we may recognise parts of ourselves, may envy or fear their focus or devotion, may find what we wish to avoid, or what we are missing.
And what are these 21st Century addictions? Sushi, Viagra, surgery, text messaging, and online dating. All soon to be added to the DSM IV, no doubt.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Unbelievable Models
Daniel Gross has an article in Slate on the GOP's opposition to Social Security couched in historic terms - their loss in the national debate over which economic model works best for America back in the Great Depression (caused after the GOP-lead Roaring Twenties). But Gross really focuses on the theoretical mite under the skin of the conservative set - when you won't believe the facts presented to you, believe the hyped-up models:
For 70 years, conservatives have been telling us that the American economy—whether it's in recession or whether it's booming—is laboring under the shackles of the burdensome taxation and misguided regulation placed upon it by FDR and his successors. Somehow, stocks would do better if the SEC were weaker and we'd all be wealthier if seniors weren't guaranteed a minimum income, funded through payroll taxes. But America's economic mastery since 1945 has served as an ongoing and constant refutation of their most dearly held beliefs. It still does today. As George Melloan concedes, "The New Deal basically expanded the reach of government, and things worked out OK." Actually, they worked out great. Some people still can't get over it.
For 70 years, conservatives have been telling us that the American economy—whether it's in recession or whether it's booming—is laboring under the shackles of the burdensome taxation and misguided regulation placed upon it by FDR and his successors. Somehow, stocks would do better if the SEC were weaker and we'd all be wealthier if seniors weren't guaranteed a minimum income, funded through payroll taxes. But America's economic mastery since 1945 has served as an ongoing and constant refutation of their most dearly held beliefs. It still does today. As George Melloan concedes, "The New Deal basically expanded the reach of government, and things worked out OK." Actually, they worked out great. Some people still can't get over it.
Muertos Incomodos and the Gun
Alex Mar reports on the efforts of Subcomandante Morcos to creat a new revolutionary literature in today's Salon, and is brutally honest about the results. But if you're inclined, check out the La Jornada newspaper online (Spanish only, and one of my favorite Mexican newspapers), for more background and atmosphere:
Amusing as the image is, it touches on something: What does it mean for a revolutionary to turn to literature? Beyond his "poetic" communiqués, Marcos has anthologized short stories, publishing "Our Word Is Our Weapon" at the height of the movement, when the Zapatistas awaited their hearing with Congress in 2001. And "el Sup," of course, is not the first radical leader to do so: take Saddam Hussein's allegorical novels that pit glorious Iraq against the corrupt Western powers (not to mention his more recent poetry from a maximum-security cell). Can such scribblings amount to more than ego fodder? Or are they the ultimate symptom of a revolutionary in winter, nostalgic for the good old days, spinning a fantasy to make up for his lame-duck reality?
But let's, for a moment, give Marcos the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is a true believer in the suggestive powers of fiction, in the possibility that a crime novel may be the most effective means of insinuating propaganda into the popular imagination. Can fiction still pull off such a feat? Marcos is one of the great propagandists of our time, and, according to Hernández, La Jornada quickly garnered a 25 percent rise in its Sunday readership with the inception of "Muertos Incomodos." The New York Times and the Guardian reported on the literary project as international news.
But while packed with venomous references to neoliberalismo, globalization, and those who "disappeared" during the anti-leftist "dirty war" of the '70s, the wrench in the book is literary: It's dismal. Its chapter-by-chapter production leaves the story without clear structure and intent, and it's as uneven as the talents of its authors, with Taibo's installments miles ahead. Despite his painfully clear aspirations, Marcos -- who has at this point written chapters 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 (out this coming Sunday) -- is no fiction writer. Rather than flesh out his hero, Marcos tends to prefer introducing new characters just for the hell of it, as with the brief appearance of a sassy transvestite mechanic. Generally speaking, his prose reads as if it has been written by a philosophy professor turned resistance leader, which is to say it begs for an editor. To put it kindly.
Amusing as the image is, it touches on something: What does it mean for a revolutionary to turn to literature? Beyond his "poetic" communiqués, Marcos has anthologized short stories, publishing "Our Word Is Our Weapon" at the height of the movement, when the Zapatistas awaited their hearing with Congress in 2001. And "el Sup," of course, is not the first radical leader to do so: take Saddam Hussein's allegorical novels that pit glorious Iraq against the corrupt Western powers (not to mention his more recent poetry from a maximum-security cell). Can such scribblings amount to more than ego fodder? Or are they the ultimate symptom of a revolutionary in winter, nostalgic for the good old days, spinning a fantasy to make up for his lame-duck reality?
But let's, for a moment, give Marcos the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is a true believer in the suggestive powers of fiction, in the possibility that a crime novel may be the most effective means of insinuating propaganda into the popular imagination. Can fiction still pull off such a feat? Marcos is one of the great propagandists of our time, and, according to Hernández, La Jornada quickly garnered a 25 percent rise in its Sunday readership with the inception of "Muertos Incomodos." The New York Times and the Guardian reported on the literary project as international news.
But while packed with venomous references to neoliberalismo, globalization, and those who "disappeared" during the anti-leftist "dirty war" of the '70s, the wrench in the book is literary: It's dismal. Its chapter-by-chapter production leaves the story without clear structure and intent, and it's as uneven as the talents of its authors, with Taibo's installments miles ahead. Despite his painfully clear aspirations, Marcos -- who has at this point written chapters 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 (out this coming Sunday) -- is no fiction writer. Rather than flesh out his hero, Marcos tends to prefer introducing new characters just for the hell of it, as with the brief appearance of a sassy transvestite mechanic. Generally speaking, his prose reads as if it has been written by a philosophy professor turned resistance leader, which is to say it begs for an editor. To put it kindly.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Curses! Foiled Again!
More fun reading from London:
A man tried to steal precious artefacts from the British Museum in broad daylight, it emerged today.
Armed only with a pair of pliers and wire, a man is suspected of attempting to prise open a display case in a Greek and Roman gallery.
But he was foiled by a sharp-eyed attendant just before closing time yesterday afternoon, the museum said.
The man ran off when he was approached by the attendant, but security guards later apprehended a suspect who was turned over to police.
Scotland Yard said a man in his late 40s had been arrested and was being held at Holborn Police Station on suspicion of attempted theft and going equipped to steal.
A British Museum spokeswoman said: "A man was spotted by an alert gallery attendant acting suspiciously so they approached him and noticed he seemed to have some wire and pliers in his hand and was seemingly trying to get into one of the cases.
"The gallery contains lots of different objects. There is some jewellery, Roman cameos, glass vessels and some larger sculptures.
"Obviously they are important objects on display in one of our key galleries." Two months ago, a thief snatched a collection of about 15 ancient Chinese jewels from the museum.
Two years ago, a small Greek marble head was stolen.
The museum in Russell Square, central London, attracts about 11,000 visitors a day.
A man tried to steal precious artefacts from the British Museum in broad daylight, it emerged today.
Armed only with a pair of pliers and wire, a man is suspected of attempting to prise open a display case in a Greek and Roman gallery.
But he was foiled by a sharp-eyed attendant just before closing time yesterday afternoon, the museum said.
The man ran off when he was approached by the attendant, but security guards later apprehended a suspect who was turned over to police.
Scotland Yard said a man in his late 40s had been arrested and was being held at Holborn Police Station on suspicion of attempted theft and going equipped to steal.
A British Museum spokeswoman said: "A man was spotted by an alert gallery attendant acting suspiciously so they approached him and noticed he seemed to have some wire and pliers in his hand and was seemingly trying to get into one of the cases.
"The gallery contains lots of different objects. There is some jewellery, Roman cameos, glass vessels and some larger sculptures.
"Obviously they are important objects on display in one of our key galleries." Two months ago, a thief snatched a collection of about 15 ancient Chinese jewels from the museum.
Two years ago, a small Greek marble head was stolen.
The museum in Russell Square, central London, attracts about 11,000 visitors a day.
Paid for Saying, Not Doing
From the chutzpah files at the Washington Post, we learn that the Bush administration want to reorganize the civil service:
The Bush administration unveiled a new personnel system for the Department of Homeland Security yesterday that will dramatically change the way workers are paid, promoted, deployed and disciplined -- and soon the White House will ask Congress to grant all federal agencies similar authority to rewrite civil service rules governing their employees.
The new system will replace the half-century-old General Schedule, with its familiar 15 pay grades and raises based on time in a job, and install a system that more directly bases pay on occupation and annual performance evaluations, officials said. The new system has taken two years to develop and will require at least four more to implement, they said.
Under the new plan, employees will be grouped into eight to 12 clusters based on occupation. Salary ranges will be based, in part, on geographic location and annual market surveys by a new compensation committee of what similar employees earn in the private sector and other government entities. Within each occupational cluster, workers will be assigned to one of four salary ranges, or "pay bands," based on their skill level and experience.
A raise or promotion -- moving up in a pay range or rising to the next one -- will depend on receiving a satisfactory performance rating from a supervisor, said officials with homeland security and the Office of Personnel Management.
I wonder what a government official would get for telling boldface lies to his superiors, ignoring important economic data, failing to read internal memos, rewarding subordinates who act as poorly he does while firing widely-regarded employees, and otherwise acting like a fool. Bush won't be getting a pay raise anytime soon.
The Bush administration unveiled a new personnel system for the Department of Homeland Security yesterday that will dramatically change the way workers are paid, promoted, deployed and disciplined -- and soon the White House will ask Congress to grant all federal agencies similar authority to rewrite civil service rules governing their employees.
The new system will replace the half-century-old General Schedule, with its familiar 15 pay grades and raises based on time in a job, and install a system that more directly bases pay on occupation and annual performance evaluations, officials said. The new system has taken two years to develop and will require at least four more to implement, they said.
Under the new plan, employees will be grouped into eight to 12 clusters based on occupation. Salary ranges will be based, in part, on geographic location and annual market surveys by a new compensation committee of what similar employees earn in the private sector and other government entities. Within each occupational cluster, workers will be assigned to one of four salary ranges, or "pay bands," based on their skill level and experience.
A raise or promotion -- moving up in a pay range or rising to the next one -- will depend on receiving a satisfactory performance rating from a supervisor, said officials with homeland security and the Office of Personnel Management.
I wonder what a government official would get for telling boldface lies to his superiors, ignoring important economic data, failing to read internal memos, rewarding subordinates who act as poorly he does while firing widely-regarded employees, and otherwise acting like a fool. Bush won't be getting a pay raise anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
