Month: June 2006

one is lonelier than your graphic makes it look

Okay, the Washington Post published this pie chart of US household types. Here’s what it says the breakdown is:

Living alone – 25.8%
Married couple & child – 22.4%
Parent & child – 22.2%
Married couple – 21.2%
Other – 8.4%

The title is, “One Is Not the Loneliest Number,” with the subtitle, “‘Single Adult’ is the most common US household type.”

So, okay, yes, that’s true, but it doesn’t mean that half of America is unmarried. Single adult households contain one adult; married couple households contain two. This means that if the numbers of single households and married households are equal, a third of the population is unmarried (well, not exactly, since there’s that ‘Other’ thing going on). For single adults to be more prevalent than married adults, the percentage of single adult households would need to be 67%, or double that of married households.

All I’m getting at here is that their title sucks, because there are fewer single individuals than married individuals, but that’s not quite the implication. Or maybe that’s just me. But I really dislike misleading and unclear graphics.

meeting the needs of my readers

Did you know that if you google “which direction does the sun set in iraq“, this site comes up as the third result?

I know this because someone searched for it, then followed the link. It showed up as a key search phrase in my stats.

Let’s go over this one more time. Someone googled the phrase, “which direction does the sun set in iraq“.

I apologize that my blog did not previously provide an answer to this very difficult question. After much research, though, I am pleased to be able to tell you what none of the top ten results for that search could.

The answer: the west.

Yes, in Iraq the sun sets in the west.

Maybe if we all understood that, we wouldn’t have to fight.

south of the border

The current issue of Newsweek has interviews with Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Felipe Calderón, the Mexican presidential candidates. I’ll admit it — I’m an ignorant American — I’d never heard of them.

Anyway, I thought, based on this teeny tiny interview, that Calderón sounded like the saner choice, but my favorite thing he said was this:

I think it’s a mistake to believe that immigration will be solved by the National Guard or a new wall. The only way to reduce immigration is to create jobs in Mexico.

It’s a completely obvious statement, but I think the debate here is polarized between people who want to keep the immigrants out and people who want to let them in. Certainly it’s much easier to act within our own borders — even if it’s not very effective — but it’s not a good reason for ignoring the only approach that has any chance of achieving a long term satisfactory resolution. Maybe we should take what it would cost to build a wall and send the National Guard down there and just invest it in the Mexican economy.

Before you jump all over me, yes, I know it’s not that simple. But seriously. Think about it.

local blogger writes boring post about cats

My parents are in North Carolina, and so this week I am at their house to feed the cats, water the plants, and perform the asundry household duties that did not depart with the residents of the house. (BTW, Harrisburg, this means we should hang out.)

To avoid having to drive back to Westminster every day to take care of my own cats, I’ve brought them with me. We (by “we” I mean “the cats and I”) had a fairly hellish hour and twenty minute drive during which they cried almost non-stop — interrupting themselves only to pant like they were dying. The air conditioning in my car isn’t working right now. I felt horribly guilty for putting them through such agony, but I kept telling them it would be worth it when we arrived because they’d have a whole new world to explore and we’d be on vacation! so we could just lie on the couch and cuddle, maybe fall asleep in the sun, and, most of all, enjoy the climate-controlled environment of my parents’ home.

When we finally arrived, I set up their litter box, put out some food and water, and let them out of their carriers. They ran into my sister’s room and hid under a chair. I sat in the hallway calling them until they came to see what the fuss was about. They sniffed everything. They peered through the windows at the cats lounging on the porch. They even ate a little. I sat on the floor with them for fifteen minutes until they were finally comfortable enough to sprawl out on their backs and start purring. I thought that was a good sign, so I got up and made myself something to eat. Apparently that was not okay.

That was four hours ago. They’ve been hiding under the hutch at the end of the hallway ever since. They poke their noses out when I sit in front of it, but despite my cajoling, they will not come out. I’ve tried to explain that there’s nothing to be afraid of — even that the furniture is more afraid of them than they are of it. But they won’t come out. I’ve pleaded with them to please come keep me company, I love them, I promise I won’t let anything hurt them, I won’t use the microwave or flush the toilet or do anything else that might make an unexpected noise. But they won’t come out.

It’s lonely here in this big house with no one around. I was looking forward to their company. I just have to keep reminding myself that they do love me — that their fear is not of me, but despite me. And although it’s dangerous to keep my hopes up, I have to believe that they will come out, and we will spend a wonderful week cuddling on the couch and sleeping in the sun. They’re just waiting for the right moment. In the meantime, I have a lot of laundry to do.

no roving charges

Patrick Fitzgerald has announced that Karl Rove won’t face charges related to the Plame leak. It seemed like something I should mention, but I don’t really know how to feel about it. I mean, it would be great to believe that he really had nothing to do with it, but the information had to come from somewhere.

But speaking of great mysteries, Jeffrey Nielsen, a Mormon and a professor at BYU, was recently fired for writing this editorial, in which he says, “I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral.” I was going to try to pull out some highlights, but the whole piece is great, so instead I’ll just recommend reading it.

missing votes

Many thanks to Tim Hodge for sending me the link to this Rolling Stone article penned by Bobby Kennedy, Jr about election fraud in 2004. And you thought this was a dead issue.

The article alleges that “in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 — more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.” These are not new allegations, but the thoroughness with which they are documented is new to me. Most striking in my mind are the various kinds of evidence accumulated.

Not only were the exit polls statistically almost impossibly far off in a number of places, but comparisons of votes for presidential candidates didn’t always resemble those cast for other related candidates and measures. That is, in 12 counties in Ohio, “a liberal black judge who supports gay rights and campaigned on a shoestring budget” pulled more votes than Kerry. By 10%. In the rest of the state, he outpolled her by 32%. Furthermore, “Statewide, the president outpolled Thomas Moyer, the Republican judge who defeated Connally, by twenty-one percent. Yet in the twelve questionable counties, Bush’s margin over Moyer was fifty percent.” According to Kennedy, “If Kerry had maintained his statewide margin over Connally in the twelve suspect counties…he would have bested her by 81,260 ballots. That’s a swing of 162,520 votes from Kerry to Bush — more than enough to alter the outcome.” Here’s a graphic overview.

In addition to exit polls and down-ticket candidate performance, Kennedy also cites evidence relating to actions taken by Blackwell, a GOP “strike force” targeting minority voter registrations, other bureaucratic (and probably illegal) barriers to registration, election workers refusing to give out provisional ballots, inequitable distribution of voting machines causing long lines in Democratic areas, faulty equipment, and questionable recounts.

It’s all very disturbing, not only because of the outcome, but because one has to then wonder — what can we do about this? After the 2000 election, an “Election Assistance Commission” was set up “to oversee ongoing reform of American voting.” Rolling Stone has a disheartening interview with the first chair of that commission, Republican DeForest Soaries.

Also from Rolling Stone, Howard Dean says:

What are we going to do about it? It’s frustrating because we don’t control the levers of power. This is going to be a very critical election in 2006. We’re very aware that there’s huge potential for additional mischief in 2006. We have no doubt that some of the folks who were active in vote suppression will be active again. It’s very, very difficult to deal with it. We just have to keep pushing forward doing the best we can. The real question is why the mainstream media won’t write about this.

every other year

Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the only state that has legalized gay marriage, said the Republican leadership “is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution. A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.”

In response, Hatch said: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?” (from the Washington Post)

I don’t know if Kennedy “really wants to suggest” that, but I’d be willing to suggest that almost half of the United States Senate is willing to pander to bigots. As a matter of fact, I think they suggested it themselves by even bringing this to the floor. The motion to end debate was 49-48 — 11 votes short of what was needed to move to an “up or down” vote. I was pleased to see that Specter voted against it.

But that’s all normal election year politics. Here’s something which might actually be worse. In Ohio, the infamous Kenneth Blackwell (the guy who, in 2004, “instructed county boards of elections to reject any registrations on paper of less than 80-pound stock”) is underfire for implementing rules that appear to have hindering voter registration as their goal. It’s hard to say if this is just him, or if the legislature passed a stupid law, but as the NY Times points out, Blackwell is running for governor, and “Mr. Blackwell should hand over responsibility for elections to a decision maker whose only loyalty is to the voters and the law.”

unity next?

A little over two years ago I wrote about a book entitled The Radical Center, by Michael Halstead and Ted Lind. Shortly after I read that book, I added Andrei Cherny’s The Next Deal to my Amazon wishlist, and shortly after that I received it as a gift. And on Friday, I finally read it.

Although the book is subtitled (at least in some editions) “The Future of Public Life in the Information Age”, more than half of it is devoted to tracing the historical origins of the Progressive movement, and only introduces proposals for the future in the last third or so of the book. That’s okay. I’m no expert in American political history, but I was already fairly familiar with most of what Cherny recounts. Even so, I found Cherny’s take fascinating, particularly the parallels he draws between the rise of the Progressive movement in response to the Industrial Revolution, and the needed rise for a new movement in response to the Information Revolution.

The book is a few years old, and was written prior to the 2000 election (I believe it was published in December 2000), so it’s maybe a whole lot more optimistic than it would be were it written today. Nonetheless, although we’re no longer in the euphoria of a balanced budget or an administration clearly trying to move the country forward, I was reminded that the fundamental underpinnings of our society are not so different from what they were five and a half years ago. While terrorism and national security and Iraq will always be part of the discussion in ways they weren’t in 2000, our key domestic issues remain largely unchanged — despite the fact that politicians continue to ignore them.

When Cherny does talk about contemporary politics, his emphasis is on citizen and choice-centered policies — and then adds an interesting twist and proposes mandatory service, either civilian or military, of all 18ish year-olds. With the exception of the last idea — which I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around enough to even be able to seriously consider — Cherny’s proposals about education, Social Security, and healthcare are, I think, all moving in the right direction. The specific proposals, though, are not the main reason I’d recommend reading the book. Rather, I recommend reading it for the history lesson, and for the reminder that we should be evaluating 2008 candidates on more than their stance on Iraq and abortion.

Which brings me to my next topic: Unity08. From their website:

We’re a movement to take our country back from polarizing politics. In 2008, we’ll select and elect a Unity Ticket to the White House— one Democrat, one Republican, in whatever order, or independents committed to a Unity team.

The idea, as I understand it, is to force the major parties to focus on those issues that actually matter most to Americans, rather than pandering to the extremes of both sides. Also from their website:

Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues – on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues – which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

In our opinion – since the disintegration of the Soviet Union – our political system seems to have focused more attention on the “important issues” than the “crucial issues.” One result: The political parties have been built to address the interests of their “base” but have failed to address the realities that impact most Americans.

Will this work? Who knows. But it is getting plenty of coverage in both mainstream outlets and the blogosphere. And as Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter points out, “With an issue as eye-glazing as the deficit, a wacky, jug-eared Texan named Ross Perot received 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and 7 percent in 1996. He did it with “Larry King Live” and an 800 number.”

too spicy

A few minutes ago as I loaded up the stats page for this blog, I thought, “I think I check my own stats more than I read the newspaper. I wish I could say I learned more this way.” Anyway. All of the googled terms which have led people to the site for the month of June referred to Pho Pasteur, which I mentioned in the blog’s very early days. It turns out that this is because there was a fire there on Tuesday night. There aren’t many details.

PennLive doesn’t keep articles for very long, so here’s the link to Wednesday’s story, but here’s a PDF that’ll remain up.

A WGAL article implies that the restaurant had closed — as if for good — but based on the PennLive/Patriot article, I think it was just closed for Memorial Day.

Anyone know anything else?