Yes, you read that right. I’d like to offer a contrarian view on the past election. I’ve read a lot of columnists and bloggers claiming that mainstream media were the big losers in the last election. Folks, it just ain’t so.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics there’s been a substantial jump in spending since 2000:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The 2004 presidential and congressional elections will cost a record $3.9 billion, according to projections based on a study of campaign finance figures by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The estimate represents a 30 percent increase over the $3 billion spent on federal elections four years ago.

And the overwhelming preponderance of that money was spent on television advertising. Now if I made 30% more this year by selling to a single market segment than I did 4 years ago whether it’s to dentists, shoe stores, or politicians you can bet that I’ll try to do more of it next time around. And $1 billion is an enormous victory where I come from.

And, as James Joyner points out, MSM are still the only game in town:

The funny thing is that I know of no one who seriously argues that bloggers have a bigger audience than the mainstream media. Indeed, were that the case, bloggers would by definition be the mainstream media. We’re not there yet and, frankly, I don’t think we aspire to be.

So not only are the media big winners so is hyper-partisanship. It’s making money for the media hand-over-fist. Expect more of it next time around.

I see that that the Economist and I are thinking along similar lines:

The Democrats certainly need to engage in a vigorous debate about the future of a party that has been in relentless decline for the past 50 years. A machine that once enjoyed a huge advantage in voter registration is almost at parity with Republicans; a party that once lorded it over Capitol Hill is now a minority in both houses of Congress, as well as being locked out of the White House. Worse, the defection of the white working class to the Republicans has left behind an awkward alliance of the upscale and the downscale—of educated elites (with a few billionaires thrown in) and ethnic minorities.

Moving the party farther to the left is unlikely to do the job. Democrats need to learn how to relate to a culturally conservative country. Mr Kerry made some feeble attempts to do this by claiming that he was a champion of “conservative values”, and by donning goose-hunting kit from the L.L. Bean catalogue. But this did not disguise his (Swiss) boarding-school roots, or the fact that his party is dominated by urban professionals who have little in common with flyover America, or his party’s failure to come to terms with American religiosity. Supporting partial-birth abortion may be fine in France, where only one in ten people say religion plays a very important role in their lives, but not in America, where six in ten people do.

A good start on this, as Mayor Daley pointed out, would be for the party leadership to get out of Washington and start talking with Democratic leaders in Chicago, for example. Here in Chicago the Democratic Party is no less committed to Democratic principles than the party elsewhere and it’s one helluva lot more successful than the party is in most places. The focus here seems to be on getting the job done rather than homogamy, abortion, and stem cell research
[continue reading…]

Quite a few very well-informed people in the blogosphere are becoming concerned over the possibility of an impending collapse of the dollar. Brad DeLong has a graph and a lengthy quote from a Washington Post article. Mr. DeLong observes:

“The best answer I’ve come up with is that the dollar is above its fundamental value because most people who might place very large bets on a rapid decline in the dollar thinks such bets are still too risky, but the risk associated with them is falling every day, and someday…”

Dan Drezner is worried, too:

“The big question that watchers of global finance have been asking in recent years is: what happens when the Asian central banks stop buying dollars?”

This is something that has concerned me for quite a while as well. We should remember that the Chinese are our trading partners but neither our friends nor our allies. How dependent should we be on their willingness to buy dollars to support our spending habit? And the Chinese have problems of their own.

And, of course, from the point-of-view of the Chinese they’re just doing what the IMF has been asking them to do:

BEIJING: China’s central bank said the country will further reforms to “create a more flexible exchange-rate mechanism,” responding to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommendation that the yuan’s peg should be relaxed.

“We will take measures in various ways to further this reform, in a gradual and steady manner,”’ the People’s Bank of China said in a statement on its website. Last Friday the IMF released a 72-page report, which said a more flexible exchange rate would help China’s government achieve its goal of a gradual economic slowdown.

China buys dollars to ensure the yuan stays at about 8.3 per US dollar and the government is concerned that a loosening of its nine-year-old currency peg might trigger capital inflows, hampering state efforts to cool the economy, according to the IMF report. Inflows would force the government to issue more yuan, boosting money supply. – Bloomberg

And, for those of you who are conspiracy theorists, it’s certainly an interesting coincidence that fluctuations in the dollar should follow hard on the heels of the defeat of John Kerry on Tuesday. Remember that John Kerry (and more specifically Kerry-supporting 527’s) received enormous financial support from George Soros, the world’s largest currency speculator. So, which came first, the opportunity for currency speculation or the support for Kerry?

“When they entered, they found hanging upon the wall a splendid
portrait of their master as they had last seen him, in all
the wonder of his exquisite youth and beauty. Lying on the floor
was a dead man, in evening dress, with a knife in his heart.
He was withered, wrinkled, and loathsome of visage.
It was not till they had examined the rings that they
recognized who it was.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Did anyone see the interview with Gloria Vanderbilt on CBS News Sunday Morning yesterday? The woman is 80 years old for goodness sake. She actually looks a little better than she did twenty years ago. There certainly are some things that money can buy.

I’ve got a favorite Gloria Vanderbilt joke. It’s a little crude but bear with me. I don’t recall who said this in an interview. Could it have been Truman Capote? “One more facelift and she’ll be wearing a goatee.”

After hearing a very interesting charge last night from Lawrence O’Donnell on The McLaughlin Group that the Red States were all client states that received more from the federal government in tax dollars than they paid out in taxes, I decided to look into it and here’s what I came up with:

State	Federal Expenditures per Tax Dollar (2003)1	Per Capita Income (2003)2	Gini Coefficient (1999)3	Carried by
Alabama	$1.69	$26,338	0.475	Bush
Alaska	1.89	33,538	0.402	Bush
Arizona	1.23	26,838	0.450	Bush
Arkansas	1.47	24,289	0.458	Bush
California	0.78	33,749	0.475	Kerry
Colorado	0.80	34,283	0.438	Bush
Connecticut	0.65	43,173	0.477	Kerry
Delaware	0.82	32,810	0.429	Kerry
Florida	1.00	30,446	0.470	Bush
Georgia	0.95	29,442	0.461	Bush
Hawaii	1.58	30,913	0.434	Kerry
Idaho	1.32	25,911	0.427	Bush
Illinois	0.73	33,690	0.456	Kerry
Indiana	0.96	28,783	0.424	Bush
Iowa	1.06	29,043	0.418	Bush
Kansas	1.13	29,935	0.428	Bush
Kentucky	1.52	26,252	0.468	Bush
Louisiana	1.47	26,100	0.483	Bush
Maine	1.36	28,831	0.434	Kerry
Maryland	1.34	37,331	0.434	Kerry
Massachusetts	0.78	39,815	0.463	Kerry
Michigan	0.86	30,439	0.440	Kerry
Minnesota	0.70	34,443	0.426	Kerry
Mississippi	1.83	23,448	0.478	Bush
Missouri	1.31	29,252	0.449	Bush
Montana	1.60	25,920	0.436	Bush
Nebraska	1.06	30,758	0.424	Bush
Nevada	0.70	31,266	0.436	Bush
New Hampshire	0.64	34,702	0.414	Kerry
New Jersey	0.57	40,427	0.460	Kerry
New Mexico	1.99	25,541	0.460	Bush
New York	0.80	36,574	0.499	Kerry
North Carolina	1.09	28,235	0.452	Bush
North Dakota	1.75	29,204	0.429	Bush
Ohio	1.02	29,944	0.441	Bush
Oklahoma	1.48	26,656	0.455	Bush
Oregon	1.00	29,340	0.438	Kerry
Pennsylvania	1.08	31,998	0.452	Kerry
Rhode Island	1.06	31,916	0.457	Kerry
South Carolina	1.36	26,132	0.454	Bush
South Dakota	1.49	29,234	0.434	Bush
Tennessee	1.29	28,455	0.465	Bush
Texas	0.98	29,372	0.470	Bush
Utah	1.19	24,977	0.410	Bush
Vermont	1.14	30,740	0.423	Kerry
Virginia	1.58	33,671	0.449	Bush
Washington	0.90	33,332	0.436	Kerry
West Virginia	1.82	24,379	0.468	Bush
Wisconsin	0.84	30,898	0.413	Kerry
Wyoming	1.13	32,808	0.428	Bush
District of Columbia	6.59	48,342	0.549	Kerry

It doesn’t seem to be quite as straightforward as Mr. O’Donnell believes. Yes, quite a few of the states that Bush carried are net beneficiaries of federal largesse. But Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, and Pennsylvania—all carried by Kerry—are such net beneficiaries. And Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, and Texas—all carried by Bush—pay more out than they receive.

What I found even more interesting was per capita income. Of the states that Bush carried only Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Wyoming had per capita incomes over $31,500. Of the states that Kerry carried only Hawaii, Michigan, Vermont, and Wisconsin had per capita incomes under $31,000. There may be something to this Red State/Blue State thing after all. But it’s Poor State/Rich State.

By the way, Gini coefficients (measures of income inequality within the state), didn’t seem to make much difference one way or another.

Human beings have been partners with dogs for a very long time—at least 25,000 years. More recent discoveries suggest that the partnership may be as much as 100,000 years old. And during all of that time humans have been intervening in the breeding of dogs—that’s what turned wolves into dogs in the first place.

For the last 40 years there’s been an ongoing experiment in Siberia in domestication that casts some highly suggestive light on just how wolves became dogs. Scientists there have been selectively breeding foxes for a single characteristic: tamability or friendliness to humans. And over the course of the experiment the foxes in the program have begun to express some of the other kinds of characteristics that differentiate dogs from wolves besides friendliness to humans: appearance of dwarf and giant varieties, piebald coat color, curly tails, floppy ears, etc.

Early human beings certainly must have noticed some of these characteristics and selectively bred their dogs companions to be better and more useful companions.

Today there are more than 150 breeds of dogs with physical and mental characteristics that pre-dispose them to excel at certain tasks. There are hunting dogs that excel at finding, trailing, flushing, or retrieving game. There are herding dogs that excel at herding or droving livestock. There are terriers bred to hunt vermin. There are working dogs that excel at pulling, or swimming, or guarding. And, of course, there are breeds of dogs that excel at being good and loving companions to people. These breeds have been shaped over thousands and thousands of dog generations.

Occasionally you’ll hear the complaint from some well-meaning souls that dogs are being forced to work. Not only is this not true but, as someone who has actually worked dogs (sledding, carting, packing, herding, and care-taking), I can tell you the actual case couldn’t be more opposite. You can’t force a dog to pull a sled or to herd. Either they’ll do it or they won’t. If the dog decides he doesn’t want to pull that sled, he’ll sit down and there’s nothing you can do to make him pull.

And, in fact, something miraculous happens when a dog is doing the work that he or she was bred for. Their entire demeanor changes and they express a kind of keenness and transcendent joy that’s wonderful to see. “So this is what I have the thick coat, and the feet shaped to run through snow, the strong legs, and shoulders and chest that yearn to pull for. Let’s go!”

We poor random-bred humans can barely appreciate that kind of joy, knowing why we were born and throwing ourselves into it with our whole hearts and our whole souls. With us only the greatest of saints have that experience. It’s every purebred dog’s birthright.

My wife and Jenny, our Lady-O, just took off a little while ago to go to the hospital to visit sick people there as part of Jenny’s therapy dog activities. That’s part of the work that our beloved Samoyed breed was bred for—to love and take care of people who need them. You should have seen the joy in her eyes as she walked out the door! She knew where she was going.

After the results of Tuesday’s election, I’m curious about something. Who’s the leader of the Democratic Party at this point? I think there are several perfectly reasonable answers to this question.

1. The Clintons
   Or SSDD. John Kerry’s defeat solidifies their hold on the party. The blame that’s being laid at Clintonite Terry McAuliffe’s feet by Democratic stalwarts (including our mayor) would seem to counter-indicate this.
2. John Kerry
   His loss just makes him “president-in-waiting” as it were. This has occasionally held true in the past and whether it will this time around depends much on Mr. Kerry’s actions. If he emulates Al Gore in 2000 and retreats to sulk in his tent, he won’t be the party’s leader.
3. John Edwards
   This could especially be true if Mr. Kerry abrogates the role to him.
4. Barack Obama
   If media face time is any indication, he’s definitely in charge.
5. Howard Dean and his supporters
   They’re energetic, angry, and still loaded for bear. The Old Guard dies but it never surrenders.

I suspect this will be quite the struggle over the next few months. Any ideas?

UPDATE: On The McLaughlin Group tonight the panelists answered this very question like this:

Pat Buchanan	The Clintons
Eleanor Clift	Nominal: John Kerry;Actual: Hillary Clinton
Lawrence O’Donnell	John Kerry
Tony Blankley	Howard Dean
John McLaughlin	The Clintons

Well, that clears things up.

Matthew Yglesias has a post here that I agree with, mostly. Here’s the real meat of the post from the very beginning:

Mark Schmitt is bored of all the Jesusland business and wants to ask the right question about religion, namely “why it is that the current flourishing of religious faith has, for the first time ever, virtually no element of social justice?”

I think the answer is that it does have a strong element of social justice. Who’s working to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa? Who’s trying to help refugees in Darfur? Who’s trying to stop global trafficking in women? Why, that would be socially conservative religious movements.

I’ve always had a bit of a problem with the term social justice at least as the term seems to be used by many people.
[continue reading…]

While I wasn’t enthralled with Bill Clinton as president, most of the differences I had with him were, shall we say, personal issues rather than serious policy differences. I disagreed with him on foreign policy. I thought he was amoral. And he was a poor husband to say the least.

But is there any doubt that he’s the most skilled politician of my generation? And probably the shrewdest American politician of any party around right now? That’s why I think that Democrats may be prudent to take heed of these comments of his quoted in the New York Post.
[continue reading…]