Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Here's a collection of graphs of voting patterns in the presidential election. The goal of the author seems to be to debunk the exuberant red-staters belief that the country is a solid mass of Bush supports, ruined by a handful of liberals at the coasts, which could easily be lost into the ocean by a good quake or tidal wave.
His reason for putting in the effort does not mar the fun of quirky statistical graphing techniques.
While the graphs are interesting, I think he could have saved himself a lot of time by just posting the popular vote numbers, which say essentially the same thing: the country is relatively evenly divided between folks who can stomach voting for Bush and those who can stomach voting for Kerry.
I can't honestly say graphing folks' choices between the lesser of two evils, as most Americans view presidential elections, gives much insight into cultural or economic divides in America, or even about where the next election will end up.
His reason for putting in the effort does not mar the fun of quirky statistical graphing techniques.
While the graphs are interesting, I think he could have saved himself a lot of time by just posting the popular vote numbers, which say essentially the same thing: the country is relatively evenly divided between folks who can stomach voting for Bush and those who can stomach voting for Kerry.
I can't honestly say graphing folks' choices between the lesser of two evils, as most Americans view presidential elections, gives much insight into cultural or economic divides in America, or even about where the next election will end up.
The Generosity Index is more than a little contrived in how it gets Massachusetts to the bottom of the list. It ranks states by per capita income and again by per capita tax-deductible charity. It then subtracts the latter rank from the former to get an "index". I'm not statistician, but that seems like a meaningless stat.
On the other hand, the per-capita tax deducitble charity ranking isn't so good for Massachusetts either.
If I had to explain it (and I don't think these guys bother), I'd guess most tax-deductible donations go to churches, which preach the tithing concept. In less religious states like Massachusetts, the church tithe is going to be much smaller, leaving only giving to general charitable institutions like the Salvation Army and Red Cross, where giving is more sporadic and few people apply a tithing rule.
I'd also hazard to guess some of those rich folks who bloat the income ranking have foundation already set up to hand out inherited money. In other words, their income is on the record, but their giving is found on the foundation's books, not their own tax returns.
Anyway, the goal of these Index guys doesn't appear to be political so much as to get rich New Englanders to pony up. I'm guessing beside the Index, these guys run a charity or two, and this index helps when making a pitch.
(Generosity Index refered to by Michelle Malkin's blog.)
On the other hand, the per-capita tax deducitble charity ranking isn't so good for Massachusetts either.
If I had to explain it (and I don't think these guys bother), I'd guess most tax-deductible donations go to churches, which preach the tithing concept. In less religious states like Massachusetts, the church tithe is going to be much smaller, leaving only giving to general charitable institutions like the Salvation Army and Red Cross, where giving is more sporadic and few people apply a tithing rule.
I'd also hazard to guess some of those rich folks who bloat the income ranking have foundation already set up to hand out inherited money. In other words, their income is on the record, but their giving is found on the foundation's books, not their own tax returns.
Anyway, the goal of these Index guys doesn't appear to be political so much as to get rich New Englanders to pony up. I'm guessing beside the Index, these guys run a charity or two, and this index helps when making a pitch.
(Generosity Index refered to by Michelle Malkin's blog.)
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Updates to Friday's posts:
Tim Blair describes some of the hideous tortures of Guantanamo, as described in The Gaurdian, a left-leaning London newspaper.
Then, Michelle Malkin backs me up on Democratic myths of stem cell research. Naturally, her post is better researched.
Tim Blair describes some of the hideous tortures of Guantanamo, as described in The Gaurdian, a left-leaning London newspaper.
Then, Michelle Malkin backs me up on Democratic myths of stem cell research. Naturally, her post is better researched.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Also today on the Powerline, there is a post on Seymour Hersh's online chat for the Washington Post as part of his book tour.
There is a point in there from a questioner in Paris, France about whether Americans are just plain ignoring the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
For this American, the issue of prisoner treatment is both unilateral - ensuring reasonable treatment of prisoners in a universal sense - and bilateral - treating prisoners in a manner consistent with our expectations of how our soldiers will be treated by the other side when taken prisoner.
I think part of the failed calculus for the French contributor is that he misses out on the bilateral portion. For instance, providing Muslim prisoners with prayer rugs, Korans, and appropriate prayer times is resonable and desirable in a bilateral sense. If taken prisoner, I would hope my religious beliefs would be similarly indulged when they don't interfere with prisoner control.
But not provided prayer rugs is not a human rights violation in a universal sense.
The fact that our military provides for these needs at both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo indicates to the average American an intent on the part of our military to be humane in the general case.
When we see prisoner abuse, especially mindless prisoner abuse as in Abu Ghraib, our inclination is to assume that it was cause by a few bad apples, not a bad system. A Frenchman may come to a different conclusion, but it is unlikely to have been reached any more objectively than how the average American came to his conclusion.
Contrast the American's expectation of repect for human rights at least and kind treatment in general of prisoners at the hands of our military with what we see of prisoner-taking in Iraq at the hands of rebels. There, we see hostages taken for the express purpose of murdering them in as gruesome a manner as possible in front of a camera for worldwide distribution.
You can see where Americans might recalibrate their expectations, at least in its affect on presidential politics, to allow a little more discression on the part of the military folks with first hand experience. Violations of human rights, as at Abu Ghraib, will still be grounds for outrage, but fewer people are losing sleep over cold meals and wet cells in Guantanamo anymore.
There is a point in there from a questioner in Paris, France about whether Americans are just plain ignoring the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
For this American, the issue of prisoner treatment is both unilateral - ensuring reasonable treatment of prisoners in a universal sense - and bilateral - treating prisoners in a manner consistent with our expectations of how our soldiers will be treated by the other side when taken prisoner.
I think part of the failed calculus for the French contributor is that he misses out on the bilateral portion. For instance, providing Muslim prisoners with prayer rugs, Korans, and appropriate prayer times is resonable and desirable in a bilateral sense. If taken prisoner, I would hope my religious beliefs would be similarly indulged when they don't interfere with prisoner control.
But not provided prayer rugs is not a human rights violation in a universal sense.
The fact that our military provides for these needs at both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo indicates to the average American an intent on the part of our military to be humane in the general case.
When we see prisoner abuse, especially mindless prisoner abuse as in Abu Ghraib, our inclination is to assume that it was cause by a few bad apples, not a bad system. A Frenchman may come to a different conclusion, but it is unlikely to have been reached any more objectively than how the average American came to his conclusion.
Contrast the American's expectation of repect for human rights at least and kind treatment in general of prisoners at the hands of our military with what we see of prisoner-taking in Iraq at the hands of rebels. There, we see hostages taken for the express purpose of murdering them in as gruesome a manner as possible in front of a camera for worldwide distribution.
You can see where Americans might recalibrate their expectations, at least in its affect on presidential politics, to allow a little more discression on the part of the military folks with first hand experience. Violations of human rights, as at Abu Ghraib, will still be grounds for outrage, but fewer people are losing sleep over cold meals and wet cells in Guantanamo anymore.
I was interested yesterday to read the consensus of talking heads on how Bush won re-election. On NBC's Today show and in print, I read it was the appeal to morals that put him over.
At first blush, I was dubious, because I, living in a battleground state, didn't hear much moral appeal. There was no talk of partial birth abortion or gay marriage. There were Kerry ads in which he criticized the Bush administration for eliminating funding for stem cell research. That's not true on so many levels: the Bush admin limited federally funded embryonic stem cell research to certain existing stem cell lines and amply funded adult stem cell research. However, as you can imagine, a Bush ad clarifying his stem cell research position wasn't going to sway many voters. John Edward's promise to help the lame walk is much more viscerally appealing.
Powerline took up the question of Bush's moral appeal today.
Let me add that the reason it may appear morality appeals are being used by Republicans is that folks to whom such appeals would work, if they were tried, tend to vote Republican. This is not because the party is more moral, but simply because there are fewer loud voices in the Republican party than in the Democratic party decrying Bible-thumping rubes. You don't get angry missives like this one from novelist Jane Smiley denouncing the Bible-believers in red states as rubes. Tell someone that is against gay marriage that only the religious right is against gay marriage and he has two choices consistent with your view: change his mind on gay marriage, or admit he is part of the religious right. You'll note a lot of bible-thumpers in southern states that thirty years ago were prepared to go to their graves before voting Republican now regularly vote Republican in national elections. As the cliche goes: "I didn't leave the party; the party left me."
In short, the Democrats don't seem to want the participation of a large group of people. Over time, that group has figured out who does. I don't have a political science degree, but I believe that's what is called a political reallignment.
FOLLOW-UP: Instapundit has pointers to some discussions of the effect of morality as an issue on Bush's election performance.
One of Andrew Sullivan's readers crunched the numbers and says gay marriage amendments made no difference in terms of improving Bush's percentage of voters over 2000. His share increased roughly the same amount for similar state regardless of whether an amendment was presented for a vote.
Slate ran the numbers on voter issues vs. presidential performance and found a 10 point increase state-to-state in folks ranking "morals" as high in their criteria lead to no increase in Bush's share of votes. A 10 point increase in folks ranking "terrorism" lead to a 3 point increase in Bush's share.
At first blush, I was dubious, because I, living in a battleground state, didn't hear much moral appeal. There was no talk of partial birth abortion or gay marriage. There were Kerry ads in which he criticized the Bush administration for eliminating funding for stem cell research. That's not true on so many levels: the Bush admin limited federally funded embryonic stem cell research to certain existing stem cell lines and amply funded adult stem cell research. However, as you can imagine, a Bush ad clarifying his stem cell research position wasn't going to sway many voters. John Edward's promise to help the lame walk is much more viscerally appealing.
Powerline took up the question of Bush's moral appeal today.
Let me add that the reason it may appear morality appeals are being used by Republicans is that folks to whom such appeals would work, if they were tried, tend to vote Republican. This is not because the party is more moral, but simply because there are fewer loud voices in the Republican party than in the Democratic party decrying Bible-thumping rubes. You don't get angry missives like this one from novelist Jane Smiley denouncing the Bible-believers in red states as rubes. Tell someone that is against gay marriage that only the religious right is against gay marriage and he has two choices consistent with your view: change his mind on gay marriage, or admit he is part of the religious right. You'll note a lot of bible-thumpers in southern states that thirty years ago were prepared to go to their graves before voting Republican now regularly vote Republican in national elections. As the cliche goes: "I didn't leave the party; the party left me."
In short, the Democrats don't seem to want the participation of a large group of people. Over time, that group has figured out who does. I don't have a political science degree, but I believe that's what is called a political reallignment.
FOLLOW-UP: Instapundit has pointers to some discussions of the effect of morality as an issue on Bush's election performance.
One of Andrew Sullivan's readers crunched the numbers and says gay marriage amendments made no difference in terms of improving Bush's percentage of voters over 2000. His share increased roughly the same amount for similar state regardless of whether an amendment was presented for a vote.
Slate ran the numbers on voter issues vs. presidential performance and found a 10 point increase state-to-state in folks ranking "morals" as high in their criteria lead to no increase in Bush's share of votes. A 10 point increase in folks ranking "terrorism" lead to a 3 point increase in Bush's share.
