How much did Hillary Clinton win the Pennsylvania primary by? She got 55% of the vote, and Obama got 45%. 55%-45%=10%, and that's what the media seems to be reporting. But if you calculate the results she actually won by closer to 9%. Maybe not a lot of difference mathematically, but breaking the double-digit barrier is huge psychologically. So what's going on?
It's not some sort of anti-Obama plot by the MSM. This is just a classic case of the media dumbing down the news so they don't have to explain "complicated" concepts like rounding errors. Hillary got 54.7% of the vote, which rounds up to 55%, and Obama got 45.3%, which rounds down to 45%. The difference is obviously 10%, nice and neat. Wrong, of course, but nice and neat.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Scientific Fraud for Fun and Profit!
Let's say you're a giant drug company that's developed a very effective new drug which eliminates some of the serious side effects that plague similar medicines. A drug that has the potential to be fantastically profitable. Only there's a bit of a problem. People who use your new drug tend to have heart attacks. Lots of heart attacks.
What do you do?
Well, if you're Merck & Co. you fudge the data, forget to tell the FDA about all the bodies piling up during your studies, and hire consultants to write favorable review articles which you then pay well-known and respected researchers (everyone has a price) to publish as their own original work.
Unethical? Sure. Illegal? Maybe. Standard operating procedure for Big Pharma? Probably. This is the sorry tale of Vioxx (rofecoxib), a revolutionary drug that helped millions of people lead better lives, yet also killed far more Americans than the attacks on 9/11.
JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, just published a paper showing how Merck gamed the medical, scientific, and regulatory communities for years in order to protect its Vioxx profits, and a second paper detailing how Merck hid mortality data that showed significantly increased death rates for patients using Vioxx. Wednesday's Washington Post has a great story on the JAMA articles.
Vioxx is sort of a super aspirin. Like aspirin and similar nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), it reduces pain and inflammation, but it does so without causing stomach upset, bleeding, or ulcers. Vioxx is a COX-2 inhibitor, which means that it mitigates the effects of prostaglandins, chemicals in your body that cause pain and inflammation.
Unfortunately, all COX-2 inhibitors also suppress an anti-clotting chemical called prostacyclin, and increased clotting activity causes heart attacks. This effect was well known even before Vioxx hit the market, and should have set off regulatory warning bells. It appears that Merck decided to play down the drawbacks in order to maximize market share and profits. Vioxx's biggest potential market was senior citizens, a group already at significant risk for heart attacks, and acknowledging that Vioxx increased that risk even further would have had a big impact on sales.
The problem here isn't Vioxx, or for that matter any of the related COX-2 inhibitors such as Arcoxia, Celebrex, and Bextra. They're all great drugs for treating chronic pain, and are probably at least as safe as older drugs when used properly. But Vioxx wasn't used properly because Merck hid the risks. Doctors simply didn't know when Vioxx was appropriate, and when it wasn't, and a hell of a lot of people died as a result.
My interest in this issue has several roots. As a good-government liberal I'm deeply concerned about the influence of money on politics, and Merck's apparently successful manipulation of the FDA is a perfect example. Not that Merck is unique, just last month the FDA admitted that it had ignored hundreds of scientific studies questioning the safety of BPA, a common ingredient in many plastics, and instead used just two studies funded by the chemical industry to conclude that BPA is perfectly safe.
As an engineer with a strong scientific background, I'm also worried about the potential of corporate money to corrupt the scientific process. Science is the search for objective truth, and we have to be able to trust what science tells us in order to make wise policy decisions.
I also have personal connection to this issue. My wife is a pharmacologist, a scientist who studies drugs. She's had to deal with the complexities of maintaining her professional and scientific integrity while accepting grants from pharmaceutical companies. In both science and politics, money almost always comes with an agenda. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying. Sometimes you just have to say no when they wave that big fat check in front of you.
Vioxx shows what can happen when large corporations place short-term profits ahead of human safety, and more broadly it illustrates the conflict between uncontrolled capitalism and the public good. Merck was able to buy off our political, scientific, and regulatory systems. Not surprising perhaps, but it's a serious problem that needs to be fixed. As one of my friends says, corporations don't have hearts, they have bottom lines.
(Phil Witte, 2007 Union of Concerned Scientists Editorial Cartoon Contest)
What do you do?
Well, if you're Merck & Co. you fudge the data, forget to tell the FDA about all the bodies piling up during your studies, and hire consultants to write favorable review articles which you then pay well-known and respected researchers (everyone has a price) to publish as their own original work.
Unethical? Sure. Illegal? Maybe. Standard operating procedure for Big Pharma? Probably. This is the sorry tale of Vioxx (rofecoxib), a revolutionary drug that helped millions of people lead better lives, yet also killed far more Americans than the attacks on 9/11.
JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, just published a paper showing how Merck gamed the medical, scientific, and regulatory communities for years in order to protect its Vioxx profits, and a second paper detailing how Merck hid mortality data that showed significantly increased death rates for patients using Vioxx. Wednesday's Washington Post has a great story on the JAMA articles.
Vioxx is sort of a super aspirin. Like aspirin and similar nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), it reduces pain and inflammation, but it does so without causing stomach upset, bleeding, or ulcers. Vioxx is a COX-2 inhibitor, which means that it mitigates the effects of prostaglandins, chemicals in your body that cause pain and inflammation.
Unfortunately, all COX-2 inhibitors also suppress an anti-clotting chemical called prostacyclin, and increased clotting activity causes heart attacks. This effect was well known even before Vioxx hit the market, and should have set off regulatory warning bells. It appears that Merck decided to play down the drawbacks in order to maximize market share and profits. Vioxx's biggest potential market was senior citizens, a group already at significant risk for heart attacks, and acknowledging that Vioxx increased that risk even further would have had a big impact on sales.
The problem here isn't Vioxx, or for that matter any of the related COX-2 inhibitors such as Arcoxia, Celebrex, and Bextra. They're all great drugs for treating chronic pain, and are probably at least as safe as older drugs when used properly. But Vioxx wasn't used properly because Merck hid the risks. Doctors simply didn't know when Vioxx was appropriate, and when it wasn't, and a hell of a lot of people died as a result.
My interest in this issue has several roots. As a good-government liberal I'm deeply concerned about the influence of money on politics, and Merck's apparently successful manipulation of the FDA is a perfect example. Not that Merck is unique, just last month the FDA admitted that it had ignored hundreds of scientific studies questioning the safety of BPA, a common ingredient in many plastics, and instead used just two studies funded by the chemical industry to conclude that BPA is perfectly safe.
As an engineer with a strong scientific background, I'm also worried about the potential of corporate money to corrupt the scientific process. Science is the search for objective truth, and we have to be able to trust what science tells us in order to make wise policy decisions.
I also have personal connection to this issue. My wife is a pharmacologist, a scientist who studies drugs. She's had to deal with the complexities of maintaining her professional and scientific integrity while accepting grants from pharmaceutical companies. In both science and politics, money almost always comes with an agenda. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying. Sometimes you just have to say no when they wave that big fat check in front of you.
Vioxx shows what can happen when large corporations place short-term profits ahead of human safety, and more broadly it illustrates the conflict between uncontrolled capitalism and the public good. Merck was able to buy off our political, scientific, and regulatory systems. Not surprising perhaps, but it's a serious problem that needs to be fixed. As one of my friends says, corporations don't have hearts, they have bottom lines.
(Phil Witte, 2007 Union of Concerned Scientists Editorial Cartoon Contest)
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Freeway Blogging
Need to get your political message out to the general public on the cheap? This is the way. Advertisers pay good money for highway billboards because they work. I haven't seen much of this around Madison other than the (presumably official) banners on some of the overpasses near campus, so there's a lot of potential here.
Here's a link to the original Freeway Blogger's website. Check out the videos below to learn more:
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that anybody break the law. Please read this post on the legality of posting political signs along roads before you do anything.
Monday, April 07, 2008
McCain and the Environment - Historical LCV Ratings
John McCain seems like an attractive candidate in some ways. He has a reputation as a "straight talker" who bucks party orthodoxy to vote his conscience. But when you examine his voting record things look a bit different. With the exception of a few specific issues, McCain is basically an orthodox conservative Republican.
I plan to look at McCain's history from several different angles, but let's start with his environmental record. This chart shows his ratings from the League of Conservation Voters all the way back to when he was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. For comparison I've also included Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although they obviously haven't served in the Congress as long as McCain. Click on the chart for a larger version.
McCain's ratings bounce around a bit, but basically he started bad and trended downward until 2000. Perhaps he decided his abysmal environmental record had hurt in his first presidential run, but for whatever reason he improved markedly from 2001 until 2004. Unfortunately he's been backsliding ever since.
It's rather interesting that McCain's 2007 LCV rating is zero not because he voted against environmental issues, but because he missed every single one of the fifteen environmental votes LCV used in it's analysis. LCV counts missed votes as negatives, and it's perfectly normal for senators running for president to miss some votes when they're campaigning. Both Clinton and Obama took rating hits because they missed four votes in 2007. But it's still really strange that McCain missed all fifteen of them. Almost gives you the impression that Mr. Straight Talk has been deliberately avoiding controversial votes...
NOTES:
1. A complete table of LCV ratings for the three current presidential candidates follows. Remember that candidates start serving the year following their election, so there's no rating for the year in which they were first elected.
2. The historical LCV ratings reports are here. Because the older documents are scans, some of them rather poor quality, I had to calculate McCain's ratings for a couple of years where sections of the reports were unreadable. I believe my numbers are accurate, but please let me know if I made any errors.
3. Up until 1989 LVC did ratings every other year (for each two-year congress), so on the chart McCain's ratings are identical for 1983-1984, 1985-1986, and 1987-1988.
4. I smoothed the trend lines in the chart. I know it isn't statistically proper and it does create some minor artifacts, but it makes the chart, which I created for public consumption, look a heck of a lot nicer.
I plan to look at McCain's history from several different angles, but let's start with his environmental record. This chart shows his ratings from the League of Conservation Voters all the way back to when he was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. For comparison I've also included Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although they obviously haven't served in the Congress as long as McCain. Click on the chart for a larger version.
McCain's ratings bounce around a bit, but basically he started bad and trended downward until 2000. Perhaps he decided his abysmal environmental record had hurt in his first presidential run, but for whatever reason he improved markedly from 2001 until 2004. Unfortunately he's been backsliding ever since.
It's rather interesting that McCain's 2007 LCV rating is zero not because he voted against environmental issues, but because he missed every single one of the fifteen environmental votes LCV used in it's analysis. LCV counts missed votes as negatives, and it's perfectly normal for senators running for president to miss some votes when they're campaigning. Both Clinton and Obama took rating hits because they missed four votes in 2007. But it's still really strange that McCain missed all fifteen of them. Almost gives you the impression that Mr. Straight Talk has been deliberately avoiding controversial votes...
NOTES:
1. A complete table of LCV ratings for the three current presidential candidates follows. Remember that candidates start serving the year following their election, so there's no rating for the year in which they were first elected.
2. The historical LCV ratings reports are here. Because the older documents are scans, some of them rather poor quality, I had to calculate McCain's ratings for a couple of years where sections of the reports were unreadable. I believe my numbers are accurate, but please let me know if I made any errors.
3. Up until 1989 LVC did ratings every other year (for each two-year congress), so on the chart McCain's ratings are identical for 1983-1984, 1985-1986, and 1987-1988.
4. I smoothed the trend lines in the chart. I know it isn't statistically proper and it does create some minor artifacts, but it makes the chart, which I created for public consumption, look a heck of a lot nicer.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
First Look at the Butler-Gableman Supreme Court Race Results
Needless to say, I was quite disappointed with the outcome of the Supreme Court race between Louis Butler and Michael Gableman. Gableman, who is ethically challenged and at best marginally competent, won by 2.5%.
As usual the results were probably determined by money. Based on the numbers collected by Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, it looks like total spending on Gablemen's behalf was about 50% higher than that for Butler, roughly $1.95 million to $1.25 million, with almost 90% of the spending coming from outside groups running so-called "issue" ads in order to avoid regulations and disclosure requirements.
Below is a map showing the county by county results with an overlay showing Wisconsin media markets. As best I can tell every market was saturated with TV ads except (as usual) area #4, the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. While I was expecting to see Butler perform better in this part of the state due to the absence of attack ads against him, Gableman is from Burnett County, and this gave him an obvious boost in Burnett and probably the surrounding counties.
If I have time I'm going to do another version of the map normalized to the results of the '04 presidential election. This would remove most of the ideological variation between the counties and therefore highlight other effects, which might be rather interesting...
The media markets are:
1. Duluth/Superior
2. Wausau/Rhinelander
3. Green Bay/Appleton
4. Minneapolis/St. Paul
5. La Crosse/Eau Claire
6. Madison
7. Milwaukee
As usual the results were probably determined by money. Based on the numbers collected by Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, it looks like total spending on Gablemen's behalf was about 50% higher than that for Butler, roughly $1.95 million to $1.25 million, with almost 90% of the spending coming from outside groups running so-called "issue" ads in order to avoid regulations and disclosure requirements.
Below is a map showing the county by county results with an overlay showing Wisconsin media markets. As best I can tell every market was saturated with TV ads except (as usual) area #4, the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. While I was expecting to see Butler perform better in this part of the state due to the absence of attack ads against him, Gableman is from Burnett County, and this gave him an obvious boost in Burnett and probably the surrounding counties.
If I have time I'm going to do another version of the map normalized to the results of the '04 presidential election. This would remove most of the ideological variation between the counties and therefore highlight other effects, which might be rather interesting...
The media markets are:
1. Duluth/Superior
2. Wausau/Rhinelander
3. Green Bay/Appleton
4. Minneapolis/St. Paul
5. La Crosse/Eau Claire
6. Madison
7. Milwaukee
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Updated - Why County Board Elections Matter!
(This is an updated and expanded version of an earlier post. In addition to my previous environmental ratings of Dane County Board Supervisors, I've added ratings based on human services and other issues. Don't forget to vote on April Fool's Day!)
It's easy to overlook the importance of the Dane County Board, and County Board elections, when we think about politics here in the Madison area. But the Board determines environmental, land use, and human services policy for the entire county, including Madison. As these ratings show, there's an enormous difference in the way liberal and conservative County Board members vote on these issues.
The first two charts show ratings for every County Board Supervisor based on their votes on environmental (1st chart) and non-environmental (2nd chart) issues since August 2006. I've grouped the liberal Supervisors (blue) and the conservative Supervisors (red) so you can see the rather astonishing contrast. The average score is more than 90% for liberals verses less than 20% for conservatives. Click on the charts for larger versions.
Below are the individual voting records of each Supervisor for every issue I used in my ratings. I ignored absences and abstentions when I calculated the percentage ratings, but they're shown in the vote records. Some County Board members miss a heck of a lot of meetings, and you should consider that when you evaluate them.
Finally, here's info about each vote that went into these ratings. The numbering corresponds to the charts above. For more details go to the Dane County Board Minutes and Agendas web page, and use the dates in the tables below to find the appropriate minutes. Keep in mind that many of these votes are on amendments or proceedural moves, so you may have to work backwards through the history of the issue to really understand what's going on.
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTES:
HUMAN SERVICES & OTHER VOTES:
Notes:
1. Due to his voting record I listed Richard Brown as a conservative despite the fact that he was endorsed by the Democratic Party in his last run. The Dem Party actually endorsed Lisa Subeck against him this time around, and Brown was eliminated in the primary.
2. Although I did the ratings and made the charts, I didn't compile the actual vote data. Many thanks to my co-conspirator who did most of the hard work to make this post possible.
3. I apologize for using images rather than tables, but blogger has a hard time dealing with anything other than very simple tables.
It's easy to overlook the importance of the Dane County Board, and County Board elections, when we think about politics here in the Madison area. But the Board determines environmental, land use, and human services policy for the entire county, including Madison. As these ratings show, there's an enormous difference in the way liberal and conservative County Board members vote on these issues.
The first two charts show ratings for every County Board Supervisor based on their votes on environmental (1st chart) and non-environmental (2nd chart) issues since August 2006. I've grouped the liberal Supervisors (blue) and the conservative Supervisors (red) so you can see the rather astonishing contrast. The average score is more than 90% for liberals verses less than 20% for conservatives. Click on the charts for larger versions.
Below are the individual voting records of each Supervisor for every issue I used in my ratings. I ignored absences and abstentions when I calculated the percentage ratings, but they're shown in the vote records. Some County Board members miss a heck of a lot of meetings, and you should consider that when you evaluate them.
Finally, here's info about each vote that went into these ratings. The numbering corresponds to the charts above. For more details go to the Dane County Board Minutes and Agendas web page, and use the dates in the tables below to find the appropriate minutes. Keep in mind that many of these votes are on amendments or proceedural moves, so you may have to work backwards through the history of the issue to really understand what's going on.
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTES:
| Vote # | Date | Minutes Page | Item | Significance |
| 1 | 8/17/2006 | 108-109 | Res. 73 | Purchase of conservation land - Dunn, Pleasant Springs. |
| 2 | 9/21/2006 | 147-148 | Res. 102 | Delay action on purchase of land next to Brigham Park. |
| 3 | 9/21/2006 | 150-151 | Res. 103 | Independent study on power lines. |
| 4 | 11/15/2006 | 193 | Budget | Cut conservation fund from $5 million to $1 million. |
| 5 | 2/1/2007 | 269 | Petition 9335 | Zoning change to permit development adjacent to Military Ridge Trail. |
| 6 | 2/1/2007 | 270 | Petition 9632 | Re-refer loosening zoning restrictions - Blue Mounds |
| 7 | 3/1/2007 | 294-320 | Ord. Am. 26 | Loosen floodplain restrictions. (Sub. 2). |
| 8 | 4/5/2007 | 371-372 | Ord. Am. 34 | Delay effective date of Coal tar sealcoat restrictions. |
| 9 | 5/2/2007 | 26-28 | Res. 290 | Delay action on Bio-Ag, Town of Dunn. |
| 10 | 8/16/2007 | 107 | Petition 9721 | Zoning change to permit construction - Vermont. |
| 11 | 8/16/2007 | 114-116 | Res. 57 Sub. 2 | RTA - Adoption of Res. 57 Sub. 2. |
| 12 | 9/6/2007 | 134-135 | Petition 9611 | Zoning change to permit construction - Vermont. |
| 13 | 9/20/2007 | 146-147 | Petition 9474 | Re-refer zoning change to permit development - Springfield. |
| 14 | 9/20/2007 | 155-157 | Res. 94 | Motion to cut Conservation Fund. |
| 15 | 11/1/2007 | 207-209 | Res. 127 | Delay action on Saddlebrook purchase. |
| 16 | 12/6/2008 | 244 | Petition 9474 | Zoning change to permit development - Springfield. |
| 17 | 12/20/2008 | 271-274 | Ord. Am. 26 | Postpone action on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). |
HUMAN SERVICES & OTHER VOTES:
| Vote # | Date | Minutes Page | Item | Significance |
| 1 | 6/1/2006 | 47 | Res. 36 | Retirement incentive for county employees to reduce need for layoffs. |
| 2 | 8/17/2006 | 110-111 | Res. 35 | Honor US Troops - includes troops home language. |
| 3 | 9/7/2006 | 131-134 | Ord. Am. 7 | Forbids housing discrimination based on receipt of "Section 8" assistance. |
| 4 | 10/5/2006 | 174-175 | Res. 110 | Opposition to WI referendum banning gay marriage and civil unions. |
| 5 | 1/4/2007 | 244-245 | Ord.Am. 27 | Right of nursing mothers to breast feed in public locations. |
| 6 | 4/19/2007 | 8 | Ord. Am. 17 | Motion to permit "Section 8" housing discrimination, would reverse #3. |
| 7 | 6/21/2007 | 62-63 | Ord. Am. 2. Sub. 1 | Requires county contractors to comply with fair labor standards. |
| 8 | 8/16/2007 | 118-121 | Res. 60 | Impeach Bush & Cheney. |
| 9 | 9/20/2007 | 153-155 | Ord. Am. 12 | Forbids county from profiting on phone calls and other services provided to jail inmates. |
| 10 | 10/4/2007 | 167-169 | Ord. Am. 18 | Strengthen fair housing requirements and enforcement. |
| 11 | 10/18/2007 | 189-190 | Ord. Am. 19 | Family medical leave |
| 12 | 11/12/2007 | 217-224 | Budget | Add 12 new sheriff's deputies without offsetting revenue |
Notes:
1. Due to his voting record I listed Richard Brown as a conservative despite the fact that he was endorsed by the Democratic Party in his last run. The Dem Party actually endorsed Lisa Subeck against him this time around, and Brown was eliminated in the primary.
2. Although I did the ratings and made the charts, I didn't compile the actual vote data. Many thanks to my co-conspirator who did most of the hard work to make this post possible.
3. I apologize for using images rather than tables, but blogger has a hard time dealing with anything other than very simple tables.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Howard Dean Back in Madison - Pictures & Audio!
Howard Dean came back to the Majestic Theater yesterday. The last time he was at the Majestic was four years ago, near the end of his unsuccessful presidential campaign. He returned as the Chair of the DNC, an organization he's transformed from a bunch of habitual losers into a political powerhouse! Darn shame he wasn't our nominee in '04.
Dean was in top form, and gave an inspirational talk about Democratic politics, the presidential race, and the DNC's new Neighborhood Leadership Program. You can listen to Dean's speech with the player below (click twice if you have IE), or download an mp3 (7 MB) by right-clicking on this link and saving. The speech is 22 minutes long.
The funniest moment of the night was right before the end of Dean's speech. A 9/11 truther came up in front of the stage and unfolded a sign saying something like "9/11 was an inside job". I helped move the guy out, he was quite nice about it, but when he got to the door he started making a lot of noise and then yelled "Don't tase me, bro!". Everyone cracked up!
The picture above is courtesy of Jim S. Be sure to scroll down and check out the rest of the pictures from the event as well. Click on any of the pics for bigger versions.
Mayor Dave and Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton, both of whom spoke at the event.
DPW Chair Joe Wineke and DNC member Jason Rae
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Why He's Called Dick
On the occasion of the 4,000th American death in Iraq, ABC News asked Vice President Dick Cheney to comment on the war:
It would be easier to take the Vice President seriously if both he and the President hadn't actively avoided serving in Vietnam, or if any of their family members were even in the military. And, as someone who lost his father to the war that Bush and Cheney refused to fight, I can assure the Vice President that George Bush is not carrying a bigger burden than the military families who have sacrificed a loved one to the neocon fantasy in Iraq.
"Noting the burden placed on military families, the vice president said the biggest burden is carried by President George W. Bush, who made the decision to commit US troops to war, and reminded the public that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan volunteered for duty."
It would be easier to take the Vice President seriously if both he and the President hadn't actively avoided serving in Vietnam, or if any of their family members were even in the military. And, as someone who lost his father to the war that Bush and Cheney refused to fight, I can assure the Vice President that George Bush is not carrying a bigger burden than the military families who have sacrificed a loved one to the neocon fantasy in Iraq.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Obama, Clinton, & McCain in the 110th Congress
How liberal are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and how conservative is John McCain? Believe it or not, there is an objective mathematical method, called Optimal Classification (OC), that lets you calculate such things if you have enough data to work with. UCSD political scientist Keith Poole, who developed OC, just finished ranking the US Senate based on the roll call votes from the first half of the 110th Congress,and the results are quite interesting.
So, where do the presidential candidates stand? Turns out that Obama is the about the 10th most liberal Senator (Feingold is the most liberal), Clinton is the 20th, and McCain is the 94th.
This isn't just another opinion. As odd as it may seem, it's actually hard science. OC is purely mathematical; there are no value judgments or subjective decisions involved. It's not often that you can separate the underlying truth from all the BS in politics, but this is one exceptions.
When I get a chance I'll graph how the presidential candidates' rankings have changed over time. For a self-proclaimed straight talker, McCain has had some particularly intriguing ideological swings during critical periods of his long political career.
OC is a unique tool that deserves to be more far widely understood and applied, and I'll be writing more about it in the future.
So, where do the presidential candidates stand? Turns out that Obama is the about the 10th most liberal Senator (Feingold is the most liberal), Clinton is the 20th, and McCain is the 94th.
This isn't just another opinion. As odd as it may seem, it's actually hard science. OC is purely mathematical; there are no value judgments or subjective decisions involved. It's not often that you can separate the underlying truth from all the BS in politics, but this is one exceptions.
When I get a chance I'll graph how the presidential candidates' rankings have changed over time. For a self-proclaimed straight talker, McCain has had some particularly intriguing ideological swings during critical periods of his long political career.
OC is a unique tool that deserves to be more far widely understood and applied, and I'll be writing more about it in the future.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Why We're Still In Iraq
I've been actively opposed to the Iraq war since before it started, although more so in the first couple of years. One of the big reasons that political opposition to the war has never gelled sufficiently to stop it is illustrated by the graphic below from a new USA Today/Gallop poll. While only 40% of Americans fully support the war, opponents have fundimental disagreements on how to actually end it. This has crippled the antiwar effort, and as a result Bush has been able to forestall all attempts to get us out of Iraq.
(Click on image for a clearer version)
The take-home lesson here is that unity is power in politics. A minority can always control the majority if the minority is united and the majority isn't. Unfortunately, achieving a united majority usually requires compromise, something a big part of the active left, including me at times, have a problem with.
(Click on image for a clearer version)
The take-home lesson here is that unity is power in politics. A minority can always control the majority if the minority is united and the majority isn't. Unfortunately, achieving a united majority usually requires compromise, something a big part of the active left, including me at times, have a problem with.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Why County Board Elections Matter - Environmental Issues
It's easy to overlook the importance of the Dane County Board, and County Board elections, when we think about politics here in the Madison area. But the Board determines environmental, land use, and human services policy for the entire county, including Madison. As these ratings show, there's an enormous difference in the way liberal and conservative County Board members vote on environmental issues and land use.
The first chart shows ratings for every County Board Supervisor based on their votes since August 2006. I've grouped the liberal Supervisors (in blue) and the conservative Supervisors (in red) so you can see the rather astonishing contrast. The average score is 90% for liberals verses less than 20% for conservatives. Click on the charts for larger versions.
The full environmental voting record of each supervisor is shown below, followed by info on each of the votes used in the ratings.
Notes:
1. Due to his voting record I listed Richard Brown as a conservative despite the fact that he was endorsed by the Democratic Party in his last run. The Dem Party actually endorsed Lisa Subeck against him this time around, and Brown was eliminated in the primary.
2. I ignored absences and abstentions when I calculated the percentage ratings, although all absences and abstentions are shown in the vote record above. Some County Board members miss a heck of a lot of meetings, so I encourage you to check out their individual voting records.
3. Although I did the ratings and made the charts, I didn't compile the actual vote data. Many thanks to my co-conspirator who did most of the hard work to make this post possible.
4. I apologize for using images rather than tables, but blogger has a hard time dealing with anything other than very simple tables.
5. I'll cover County Board votes on other issues in a future post. Watch for it...
The first chart shows ratings for every County Board Supervisor based on their votes since August 2006. I've grouped the liberal Supervisors (in blue) and the conservative Supervisors (in red) so you can see the rather astonishing contrast. The average score is 90% for liberals verses less than 20% for conservatives. Click on the charts for larger versions.
The full environmental voting record of each supervisor is shown below, followed by info on each of the votes used in the ratings.
| Vote # | Date | Minutes Page | Item | Significance |
| 1 | 8/17/2006 | 108-109 | Res. 73 | Purchase of conservation land - Dunn, Pleasant Springs. |
| 2 | 9/21/2006 | 147-148 | Res. 102 | Delay action on purchase of land next to Brigham Park. |
| 3 | 9/21/2006 | 150-151 | Res. 103 | Independent study on power lines. |
| 4 | 11/15/2006 | 193 | Budget | Cut conservation fund from $5 million to $1 million. |
| 5 | 2/1/2007 | 269 | Petition 9335 | Zoning change to permit development adjacent to Military Ridge Trail. |
| 6 | 2/1/2007 | 270 | Petition 9632 | Re-refer loosening zoning restrictions - Blue Mounds |
| 7 | 3/1/2007 | 294-320 | Ord. Am. 26 | Loosen floodplain restrictions. (Sub. 2). |
| 8 | 4/5/2007 | 371-372 | Ord. Am. 34 | Delay effective date of Coal tar sealcoat restrictions. |
| 9 | 5/2/2007 | 26-28 | Res. 290 | Delay action on Bio-Ag, Town of Dunn. |
| 10 | 8/16/2007 | 107 | Petition 9721 | Zoning change to permit construction - Vermont. |
| 11 | 8/16/2007 | 114-116 | Res. 57 Sub. 2 | RTA - Adoption of Res. 57 Sub. 2. |
| 12 | 9/6/2007 | 134-135 | Petition 9611 | Zoning change to permit construction - Vermont. |
| 13 | 9/20/2007 | 146-147 | Petition 9474 | Re-refer zoning change to permit development - Springfield. |
| 14 | 9/20/2007 | 155-157 | Res. 94 | Motion to cut Conservation Fund. |
| 15 | 11/1/2007 | 207-209 | Res. 127 | Delay action on Saddlebrook purchase. |
| 16 | 12/6/2008 | 244 | Petition 9474 | Zoning change to permit development - Springfield. |
| 17 | 12/20/2008 | 271-274 | Ord. Am. 26 | Postpone action on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). |
Notes:
1. Due to his voting record I listed Richard Brown as a conservative despite the fact that he was endorsed by the Democratic Party in his last run. The Dem Party actually endorsed Lisa Subeck against him this time around, and Brown was eliminated in the primary.
2. I ignored absences and abstentions when I calculated the percentage ratings, although all absences and abstentions are shown in the vote record above. Some County Board members miss a heck of a lot of meetings, so I encourage you to check out their individual voting records.
3. Although I did the ratings and made the charts, I didn't compile the actual vote data. Many thanks to my co-conspirator who did most of the hard work to make this post possible.
4. I apologize for using images rather than tables, but blogger has a hard time dealing with anything other than very simple tables.
5. I'll cover County Board votes on other issues in a future post. Watch for it...
Friday, March 07, 2008
Hillary and the DLC
So we all know Hillary Clinton is tight with the Democratic Leadership Council, but do you know just how right-leaning and corporatist the DLC is? I originally posted this bit of snark about a year and a half ago, but it seems even more relevant now:
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), or the Democrats of the Leisure Class as some like to call them, has a problem. A few years ago the IRS yanked their 501(c)(4) nonprofit tax status, basically because they call themselves Democrats, and (c)(4)'s aren't supposed to be partisan.
So what does the DLC do?
It sends a letter back to the IRS saying that they really are nonpartisan, and the proof is that on many issues more Republicans than Democrats support them.
Good to know...
Read the whole thing in Forbes (free registration required):
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2006/1002/048.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)