Bloggergate

Created: November 30th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

Here we go again. Not since William Jefferson Clinton has one man been involved in so many scandals in such a short period of time as yours truly. If this pace holds up I will be seeking the assistance of Vernon Jordan.

Sphere: Related Content

God is Not a Republican…Or a Democrat

Created: November 30th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

On November 16th at the historic Trinity Church in New York City a very interesting dialogue was opened. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners - Christians for Justice and Peace, moderated a panel discussion which took up the topic of what role religion will play in the reconcilliation of the U.S. post election. The panel for this discussion consisted of Dr. Richard Land, The Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, The Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, and The Rev. Dr. Jim Forbes. This panel discussion can be viewed in it’s entirety here at the Trinity Church’s website, or via the links below.

A DVD of this presentation is being offered for $29.95

To Place an order please call 888-901-1776 or click here to order online.

All major credit cards accepted

Sphere: Related Content

Sex Scandal

Created: November 29th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

Well, well. I have not even run for public office yet it appears I am embroiled in a full blown sex scandal. See what happened is I came in tied for second (second?) in the ISOU Sexiest Bloggers Contest and now David is up on trial by The Commissar (see Show Trial #27). The good news is that David is always on trial by The Commissar so hopefully this thing will blow over and not mar my aspiring political career. LOL

By the way, thanks to whomever nominated me…I am flattered.

Sphere: Related Content

Morality in the Real World, Continued…

Created: November 29th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

“What Would Jesus Do?”

“Morality” has become a top priority in conservative politics. Many people who promote an ultra-conservative agenda, while claiming to represent Jesus, are pushing the concept of making certain “immoral” activities illegal, even if it means changing the Constitution of the United States to do so.

So, what DID Jesus do?

In John, chapter 8, a group of ultra-conservative religious leaders brought to Jesus a woman who was caught in the act of adultery. In the religious law of the time, adultery was punished by a mandatory sentence of execution by stoning. The religious leaders presented their case to Jesus, with the intent of using His reply as a weapon against Him. Jesus proceeded to ignore the group. As the religious leaders continued to press Jesus for an answer, He turned toward them and said “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8, verse 7, NIV). Jesus then again bent down to ignore them. As the meaning of what Jesus had said started to sink in, the group of religious leaders left one by one, leaving only the accused woman standing there. “Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ‘No one, sir,’ she said. ‘Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin.’” (John 8, 10-12, NIV)

In John, chapter 4, Jesus and his companions had to walk through Samaria to get back home. The Samaritans worshipped the same God as the Jewish people, however they were not related to the people of Israel; they had been moved there by a foreign conqueror some centuries before. To say that the Samaritans were hated by the people of Israel is a huge understatement; my research indicates they were despised to a degree that anyone who grew up in the United States cannot comprehend. Jesus stopped at a well along the road to rest (in the semi-desert climate, a well became a public necessity), while his companions went ahead to buy food. While Jesus was waiting for them to return, a local Samaritan woman came by to collect some water. Jesus initiated a conversation with her, which violated the customs of the time. Jesus revealed to her that He knew she had been divorced five times, and was currently living with a man she wasn’t married to. After her initial shock, the Samaritan woman came to realize the power of Jesus, and ran to tell her neighbors. The Samaritans convinced Jesus and his companions to stay with them for two days. Imagine the kind of people that you find most repulsive, then imagine staying in their homes - as their friend - for several days!

In both of these cases, and many others, Jesus did not condemn those he met who had moral issues; he politely told them they were wrong, and proceeded to be kind to them. Jesus proved that He could do more good by reaching out to people, than He ever would have done by condemning them.

If Jesus were to visit the United States today, what WOULD He do?

-Artie See

Morality in the Real World, Part One

Sphere: Related Content

How King George May Wake Up America

Created: November 29th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

A respected colleague and I were just discussing how it will apparently, unfortunately take some sort of crisis to get the American people to “wake up” to what is really going on in this country — a crisis that “King George The Divine” will no doubt provide (and will no doubt try to blame on the Left).

As I see it, the “wake-up call” will be one or more of the following (of varying probabilities):

Geo. and the GOP Congress gut Social Security (near the top of his wish list).

An economic crisis is precipitated — disastrously quickly or excruciatingly slowly — by the continued fall of the dollar (resulting from higher deficits, from higher tax cuts, also at the top of George’s wish list) — the resultant rise in interest rates (to attract foreign investors back, to bail us out of our profligate ways) will prove way too much for way too many people, just getting by as it is with their variable-rate mortgages at historically (read, unsustainably) low rates.

Geo. “pacifies” Iraq and then from there and from Afghanistan goes into Iran (He’s called them part of the Axis of Evil, of course; and Geo. is “a man of his word”). Say hello to a new draft — I’m sure some sort of Gulf of Tonkin thing can be cooked up to void his campaign promise against it, and the machinery for the draft is reportedly (as in this blog) already being re-activated.

Geo. fails to “pacify” Iraq, which descends into outright civil war, with us caught right in the middle, with no real way out. If the elections aren’t held by Jan. 30th (and there’s more and more talk of that possibility), the Shiites (and the U.N.) will be really pissed off; if the elections are held by then, with security iffy at best, then a lot of Sunnis et al. will be effectively disenfranchised and, thus, really pissed off.

Geo. pushes that nut in North Korea over the brink, and a city in the western US goes up in a mushroom cloud not unlike the one Geo. & Condi warned us about from Iraq. Although Iraq lacked missiles with sufficient range to reach us (and Saddam knew better than to attack us), North Korea has almost if not already developed such missiles (in the multi-stage, Taepo Dong class of launch vehicles); and I doubt that if Geo. pushes him into a corner, Kim Jong Il will sit back and allow himself to go the way of Saddam — the Cold War game of “chicken” only works if your opponent is not psychopathic to the point of suicide (Hmm, come to think of it, does that better describe the North Korean dictator or King George The Divine?). Or the Alaskan oil terminals (almost certainly within North Korean missile range now) could be rendered radioactive for several centuries, which would send world economies crashing sooner than you can say “Why didn’t we develop solar?!” — then we, like the North Koreans, could go out and graze on grass. But at least we could still tell the gays they can’t get married.

Al Qaeda gets lucky, especially with the “Yes, George, anything you say” mindset being propagated in the CIA. “Intelligence” in the Bush Administration? The ultimate oxymoron.

OR a “smoking gun” somehow emerges to show how Geo. et al. could have rigged, did rig, or tried to rig the election…in which case all bets are off (The Ukrainians seem to be handling things well — non-violently, through the courts, with a call for new elections).

Then again, peace and prosperity could blossom under the Bush Administration; pigs could fly; and Jeb could be elected in 2008 by acclamation. And I move to the Ukraine!

-Doug D.

To read Doug’s previous pieces on this years exit polls go here.

Sphere: Related Content

Ten Plagues

Created: November 26th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

by Thomas Burns

Republished with the permission of Thomas Burns.

Sphere: Related Content

Check out those fillings

Created: November 26th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

Sorry, feeling a bit lazy today…

Sphere: Related Content

Apparently "Alexander" Sucks

Created: November 26th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

I think this officially qualifies as a headline writer’s orgy…everybody gets some.

1. ‘Alexander’ is far from being great
2. OK, Alexander was cute. Was he great? Not in this movie.
3. Stone’s ‘Alexander’ turns out not so great
4. Review: ‘Alexander’ Far From Great
5. This Alexander is not so great, say film critics
6. “Alexander” the Average
7. “Alexander” (the mediocre)
8. Alexander Grates
9. Stone’s ‘Alexander’ turns out not so great
10. ‘Alexander’: A Crying Shame

Sphere: Related Content

Pistons Pacers Fight - Artest Meltdown Video

Created: November 26th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

For those of you who arrived here looking for the Artest fight video, I orginally posted about it here.

If you don’t want to sign up for ESPN Motion then you can view the entire video via The Daily Recycler.

Hat tip to Wizbang.

Sphere: Related Content

Now GEORGE DUBYA Does The Math & Alleges Vote Fraud!

Created: November 25th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

IF EXIT POLLING IS SO UNRELIABLE, THEN WHY DID THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION USE IT IN 2003 TO JUSTIFY THE OUSTER OF EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE AS PRESIDENT OF GEORGIA, AND WHY — AT THIS VERY MOMENT — IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION USING EXIT POLLING TO CHARGE ELECTION FRAUD IN THE UKRAINE?!

From the lead story on the front page of the Nov 23 Los Angeles Times…

…I take these excerpts…

UKRAINE ELECTION CRISIS ERUPTS

Thousands protest amid allegations of fraud as official count shows pro-Russian premier edging reformist rival in presidential race.

By David Holley

Times Staff Writer

KIEV, Ukraine — A political crisis erupted here Monday as official results showed Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich winning a bitterly contested presidential election, while opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko brought supporters into the streets to press his own claim of victory.

Ukrainian security forces threatened a crackdown as tens of thousands of protestors massed in central Kiev chanting the name of the pro-Western opposition leader. Foreign observers — including President Bush’s personal envoy, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind) — condemned alleged election fraud, throwing their weight behind Yushchenko and his charge that the official count was wrong.

The Central Election Commission announced that with 99.14% of voting districts counted, the prime minister led in the runoff with 49.4% to Yushchenko’s 46.7%. [A 3% MARGIN OF "MANDATE" SOUNDS SORTA FAMILIAR]

However, an exit poll financed in part by the U.S. Embassy and other Western diplomatic missions showed the opposition leader winning 54% to 43%. [MAN, WHAT MUST THE ODDS BE OF THE EXIT POLLS BEING THAT FAR OFF?! IT WAS ONLY A 250-MILLION-TO-ONE LONGSHOT OF THE EXIT POLLS FOR KERRY IN FL, PA, AND OH BEING SO FAR OFF, ACCORDING TO THAT UNIV OF PENN PROF.]

…

Yanukovich…has the backing of outgoing President Leonid D. Kuchma, whose own reelection in 1999 drew criticism from Western observers… [AND HERE I WAS SORTA LOOKING FORWARDS TO 2008]

The opposition leaders vowed to challenge the election through parliament and the courts, and called for a protest outside parliament today…

Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Interior Ministry and security services issued a joint statement warning that “lawlessness” would not be tolerated…

Yanukovich…claimed majority support of the voters and warned against “a small group of radicals who seek to divide Ukraine by resorting to pressure and unlawful actions.”

…

Speaking at a U.S. Embassy news conference, Lugar…asserted that the results were rigged…

“It is now apparent that a concerted and forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or cooperation of governmental authorities,” Lugar said…

Lugar also quoted a letter from Bush that he had delivered to Kuchma: “You play a central role in ensuring that Ukraine’s election is democratic and free of fraud and manipulation. A tarnished election, however, will lead us to review our relations with Ukraine.”

[BUT GEORGE, MAYBE THE YANUKOVICH SUPPORTERS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY WERE JUST A LOT LESS WILLING TO SPEAK WITH THE EXIT POLLSTERS, OR SOMETHING. IS GEORGE DUBYA GETTING DUPED INTO "CONSPIRACY THEORIES"?!]

…Bruce George, a leader of a delegation from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe…[said,] “The abuse of state resources in favor of the prime minister continued as well as an overwhelming media bias in his favor.” [FOXSKY NEWS?]

Lucio Malan, head of a delegation from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Parliamentary Assembly, said at the same news conference that an “unjustified increase in the use of absentee voter certificates” had “cast a shadow over the genuineness of the results.”

He said that turnout in some districts in Donetsk, a Yanukovich stronghold, had jumped by 21 percentage points from the first round to more than 98% on Sunday, which he called “unrealistic and highly suspicious.” [SOUNDS VAGUELY FAMILIAR]

…

Viktoria Ruban, 37, a marketing executive who joined the protests Monday, said she came [to the tent city of protestors in the city center of Kiev] because “we should teach the state they don’t have any right to impose something on people.”

“I can tell you for sure that Yanuovich and his team won’t give up that easily,” she said. But neither will the opposition, she added.

IT’S GOOD TO KNOW THAT THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL…IN THE UKRAINE.

– DOUG D.

To read Doug’s previous pieces on this years exit polls go here.

Others blogging this story…

plebiscit with Ukraine Election Crisis Erupts

My Life and Time with today’s papersTrickin’ Kiev

Element115 with Each Candidate Claims Victory in Ukraine Election

Sphere: Related Content

Iraq War Dead Estimate Controversy

Created: November 24th, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

You might find this interesting, as I did — a question from a friendly Midwest blogger about the Lancet study (PDF) using statistics to estimate the number of Iraqis killed during our intervention in Iraq. Criticisms vs. the study were raised by an article in Slate, and those criticisms were (I think) well answered by an article in Crooked Timber. First the question I got (with the links); then my response…

===============================

I was discussing this article from Slate by Kaplan who disagreed with the methodology.

However, someone responded with a link that argued that the criticisms weren’t valid.

From what I can understand, the dispute was centering around whether the regions were representative and whether the 95% confidence margin was too wide to invalidate the poll. They seem to be in dispute about what even the key “rules” are to determining this sort of thing so I know I’m out of my league arbitering it.

=====================================

OK, I’ve had a chance to read both articles. When I was reading the first, I was making mental notes; and lo and behold, the second author (in Crooked Timber) made the points I was thinking of, and several others and better than I could.

The first author raises a good point about the wideness of the confidence intervals; the second author correctly points out that the most likely value in a confidence interval is the central value — the likelihood of other values in the range drops off dramatically the farther away you get from the central value (giving rise to the characteristic “bell curve” describing a “normally” distributed population — basically any large population). It’s just much more likely in an honest sampling to get a value, say, 1 point away from the average than 2 points away; much more likely to get a value 2 points away than 3 points away; and so forth.

You can conduct an experiment yourself: Try flipping a coin ten times. You’ll probably get heads five times. You’re less likely to get heads four or six times, and you’re a lot less likely to get heads three or seven times — try repeating your ten-flip experiment several times; I bet those are the results you get (of course, you could just get “lucky” and get heads every single time; but that’s highly unlikely, by common sense and statistics, describing the real world).

I might only add that the wideness of the confidence interval should give us more, not less, confidence in the researchers: They are erring on the side of caution, not recklessness, by reporting such a wide range.

The sampling method seems to me (not an expert on stats, just a student of the fascinating subject) to be reasonable, for all the reasons the second author cited. His minefield analogy was brilliant: You can see how such “cluster” sampling (sampling randomly selected neighborhoods nationwide rather than, say, every tenth person all across the country — an impractical alternative to this cluster method, a historically reliable method) will tend to UNDERestimate, not overestimate, such “rare” events as violent death — you’re “lucky” to hit any pockets of such unusual occurrences (assuming that violent deaths are “unusual” in the population — even during wartime most people don’t get killed, which is why we’re looking at these estimates).

Personally, I think the authors of the study should have included, not excluded, the data from the neighborhood that their random sampling happened to select in Falluja, even though it showed a much higher death rate than elsewhere in the country: Of course it did, because it was a center of resistance; and it was not the only place in the Sunni Triangle that was so inclined and so hard hit — that’s the whole point of cluster sampling over the whole country (the samples selected by random global positioning points) — if you’re in a “minefield”, you’re going to hit a “mine” every so often (to use the second author’s analogy).

The comparison by the first author of death rates in a pre-war study (whose possible and perhaps probable sources of error are examined by the second author) with pre-war estimates in the second study is not terribly useful: The two studies were very much unlike, in methodology and focus (ex. infants and adults), so it’s rather like comparing apples and oranges (If the Lancet study had used such comparisons, its critics would really be having a field day). What’s more the issue is how significantly death rates have increased, using the same methodology and samples etc. in the Lancet’s pre- and post-war analyses. And as the second author points out — and as common sense dictates — the death rates in Iraq have evidently increased significantly and probably dramatically with the war and its aftermath.

The issue of “lying Iraqis” seems the strongest to me; however, the second author points out that in at least 81% of the cases in which the veracity was challenged, there were death certificates available to back up the reports of deaths (One could assume all sorts of conspiracies from there onward, but there is apparently no evidence to contradict this finding). The data appears legitimate.

And the second author does well in quickly debunking the comparison of the Lancet findings with the confirmed death totals reported to the media; obviously, in wartime, a lot of deaths go unreported — again why we have to try to estimate deaths from the best samples we can get.

How many people — civilians, combatants, civilian/combatants — have died in Iraq because of the war? No one really knows or ever will know with a great deal of precision — that’s the nature of warfare, down through the ages. Regardless of how it has been over-hyped or legitimately or incorrectly critiqued, this study does seem to make a serious atttempt, using legitimate and time-tested methods, to give us some sort of idea of the real human cost of our intervention in Iraq, most likely measured in the tens of thousands of lives.

I must add, however, that if we are to make a full accounting that we must add in the deaths (not to mention maimings etc.) resulting from the additional interventions our government has made in Iraq over the years (primarily to maintain a stable supply of oil): Our government helped install and maintain Saddam Hussein, who used murder as a tool not only to maintain power once he got in but also to gain power in the first place, which was well known to our government at the time; our government backed Hussein in the Iran/Iraq War, which he started and which resulted in the deaths of some one million people; our government backed Hussein when he gassed the Kurds (An infamous, contemporaneous photo even shows Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand; and components and/or delivery systems for the poison gas were, I believe, supplied at least in part by American companies, under the supervision of our government); and our government encouraged the Shiites in the south to revolt after the first Persian Gulf War, then stood by and allowed Hussein to slaughter them (resulting in those mass graves we’ve heard so much about).

We’ve had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on our hands for decades. Ironically, by getting rid of Saddam (who no longer was a cooperative puppet), we are “cleaning up a mess” that we had a big hand in creating. Hopefully, we will make things better for the common Iraqi people in the long-run; but I doubt they will have a government that will be much less of a cooperative puppet than that of Saddam Hussein pre-Gulf War I.

As Ronald Reagan so bluntly put it, our interest in the Middle East can be spelled in three little letters: “O - I - L”.

We ain’t invadin’ the dictatorial republic of No-oil-istan.

Today, Iraq; tomorrow, Iran. What’s a consonant between friends?

-Doug D.

Sphere: Related Content

Release the hounds

Created: November 23rd, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

For those of you who voted for George W. Bush because he seemed like the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with, here is what you have done.

Reverend Jerry Falwell, national chairman of the Faith and Values Coalition and Moral Majority founder, labeled the National Organization for Women (NOW) the “National Order of Witches,” said he was going to invite People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Christian men’s gatherings called “Wild Game Night” so that they “can sit there and suffer,” and called Americans United for Separation of Church and State “an anti-Christ” group.

Thanks for helping this whack-job feel like he has a mandate to revitalize the old Moral Majority. I hope your wife looks good in a burka.

Hat Tip to Atrios.

Sphere: Related Content

All Hail…

Created: November 23rd, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

…Our Glorious Leader

This public service message has been brought to you by the good people of Clear Channel Outdoor.

Sphere: Related Content

Co-Sponsor Senator Kerry’s Protect Every Child Bill

Created: November 23rd, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

Ok folks, put your mouse where your mouth is. Senator Kerry is seeking the support of everyone who voted for him in November by offering you a unique opportunity. Typically when a Senator introduces a piece of legislation he asks for other Senator’s to co-sponsor the bill. In this case, Senator Kerry is asking that we, the American people, co-sponsor this bill. In his words,

“Imagine the power of a bill co-sponsored by hundreds of thousands of Americans being presented on the floor of the United States Senate. You can make it happen.”

Here is your opportunity to have your voice heard and show President Bush that we WILL NOT roll over and have our voices quelled by his so called “mandate.”

Click here to read the details of this legislation and co-sign The Protect Every Child Bill.

Sphere: Related Content

We’re (no longer) no. 1

Created: November 23rd, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

Okay Mom, I guess I can take the family home for Thanksgiving - we are no longer no. 1

I just hope the Lion’s don’t get their butt’s handed to them by the Colts like the President handing a plastic turkey to the troops.

Sphere: Related Content

Needle in a hay stack

Created: November 23rd, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

I am going to have to come down on the side of both McCain and Pelosi on this one. If you have not heard, some yet unknown legislator(s) slipped a provision into the omnibus spending bill which would have “allowed two committee chairmen to view the tax returns of any American.” This is simply nuts, and did you know that this bill was over 1,000 pages long? Who is going to read a 1,000 page spending bill on the eve of the recess of congress? What the hell else is in there?

Sphere: Related Content

Which is worse?

Created: November 21st, 2004 | Written By: Michael Tedesco

The Republicans in Congress will have you believe that the worst crime perpetrated upon the American public in recent years is the use, by congressional Democrats, of the filibuster. In particular, the filibuster was used to block the appointments of only 10 out of 211 of President Bush’s first term judicial nominees. This amounted to an attempt to block only the most extreme right wing of Bush’s appointments. The Republicans have repeatedly called this “an unprecedented use of the filibuster” but it is only unprecedented if you ignore their record.

“…in the last five years of the Clinton presidency, Republicans blocked 20% of the nominees submitted to the Senate. In President Bush’s first three years, only 3.4% of judicial nominees have been rejected. Already, the Senate has confirmed thirty Bush circuit court nominees - this is a greater number than President Clinton was allowed in his two full terms in office.”

Now the Republicans have taken a step I am sure they will try to downplay but which is significantly more serious. Against the urging of both the President and Vice President, House Republican leaders blocked and likely killed the bill which would have enacted the 9/11 Commission recommendations. As they have proven time and again, the Republican leadership in congress thought it more important to protect their own narrow self-interests over those of the American people and now we will certainly be less safe and more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks as a result. So I ask you, which is worse; using the filibuster to block extreme judges, or blocking legislation which everyone agrees must be passed if we are to protect this nation from future terrorist attacks?

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »