Year: 2007

Petreaus Says He Doesn’t Know If the War in Iraq Is Making the U.S. Safer

Jon Ponder

During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today:

WARNER: I hope in the recesses of your heart that you know that strategy will continue the casualties, stress on our forces, stress on military families, stress on all Americans. Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress, this strategy, that if you continue, you are making America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objections in Iraq.

WARNER: Does that make America safer?

PETRAEUS: Sir, I don’t know actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

If the head of our military in Iraq doesn’t know if the war there is making us safer, who does?

Cross posted at the BRAD BLOG

Looking for a Dogfight This Weekend?

Buck Banks

There are four states where it’s perfectly legal to watch a dog fight: Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho and Montana. In 26 other states, it’s only a misdemeanor to watch. Of course, it’s a felony to organize dogfights in 49 states; it’s a misdemeanor in Idaho. It’s legal to possess fighting dogs in Georgia and Idaho.

Vick’s longest-lasting legacy will be accidental but far more important: bringing political pressure to bear upon a most repulsive pastime.

But in the wake of NFL star quarterback Michael Vick’s arrest for breeding, training and fighting dogs, the few remaining states that allow the blood sport are considering bolstering enforcement, and even the generally worthless congress has got three bills moving through the Senate and House that would strengthen federal restrictions on dogfighting.

The Politico suggests that such legislation will be what Vick is remembered for:

There was a time when it was thought Vick would revolutionize his position in pro football with his unique athleticism. It is turning out that his longest-lasting legacy will be accidental but far more important: bringing political pressure to bear upon a most repulsive pastime.

Vick, who faces federal jail time because his dogfighting operation crossed state lines, represents just the tip of the iceberg in U.S. dogfighting:

Although there’s no national tally of enforcement numbers, Pet-Abuse.com, a Web site that attempts to keep track of dogfighting citations, recorded 167 police cases so far this year, on a pace ahead of 2006, when a total of 127 cases were filed against organizers, and 2005 with 129 cases.

Still, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) estimate there are as many as 40,000 people who stage organized dogfights in the country and many more having impromptu dogfights on the street.

Maybe, with legislative task forces at the state level and tougher federal legislation coming down the pipe, law enforcement can take a bite out of this heinous crime.

Should Florida Democrats Change Parties?

Trish

If the Democrats don’t want my Florida votes, they can’t have my Florida money.

That’s what I’m telling everyone who calls or emails me for support — and I’m on a lot of calling and email lists — until the party makes up its mind whether to count Florida’s votes in the coming primary.

Maxwell: I figure if your party won’t count your vote, join one that will

The presidential preference election was moved by the Florida legislature to Jan. 29,* putting it ahead of four other states and causing the DNC to turn all red in the face like your dad did when you came home late and woke him up. They threatened to ground us until the general election by denying us delegates at the national convention. They also forced Democratic candidates to agree not to campaign in Florida, although that hasn’t stopped them from coming here for fundraisers.

Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell is putting forth an even bolder solution than my purse strings strategy: change parties. Maxwell points out that the RNC, while also upset about the primary move, is only threatening to take away half of Florida’s GOP delegates.

I figure: If your party won’t count your vote, join one that will.

Seriously, Democrats. March down to your elections office and become a Republican.

That way, come January, you can vote — for the Republican you like best, the one you dislike the least or, if you wanna be sneaky about it, you can even vote for the Republican that you think would be the easiest for a Democrat to beat in November.

Whatever way you do it, your vote will count — at least more than it would as a Democrat if the national folks follow through with their threat.

What’s more, after you vote Republican, you can switch back — and vote in the regular Democratic primaries in September…

Admittedly, the Florida Democratic Party wasn’t too keen on my idea.

Said party spokesman Mark Bubriski: “I don’t know how any Democrat, no matter how understandably angry they may be, could justify switching to the party of Katherine Harris, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Bob Allen, Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, Tom Feeney, et cetera based on an internal party dispute over a primary election.”

That’s not a bad sound bite. Too bad hardly anyone’s going to hear it.

That’s because the Democrats seem too busy doing what they often do so well: becoming their own worst enemy.

I have news for Mark. This is more than an internal party dispute since it affects whether my vote will count. And in many ways, the primary is more important than the general election. That’s the very reason it was moved up. But that attitude by our party leaders is why most of us rank and file Democrats are as fired up as my dad used to get when he caught me coming in after midnight.

Update: Thanks to my new BFF, Anonymous, for noting the correct date of the presidential preference primary. The post has been edited accordingly.

Neuroscience Study: Smart Brains Have Liberal Bias

Jon Ponder

A new study in the journal Nature Neuroscience not only suggests that the brains of liberals and conservatives are wired differently — as many have long suspected — but also that liberals’ brains are more adept at processing new ideas:

The study suggests that liberals are more open to new social, scientific and religious ideas.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show “there are two cognitive styles — a liberal style and a conservative style,” said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

The study asked subjects to rate their political leanings on continuum of 5 (conservative) to -5 (liberal). The experiment required the subjects to
make quick decisions:

Out of the 500 trials that each subject completed, he or she was presented with the same letter 80 percent of the time. This meant that the participants felt compelled to press the same button repeatedly.

“You keep seeing the same stimulus over and over, so when the opposite stimulus comes on it’s always a surprise,” says [David Amodio, the study’s lead author].

When the less common letter did appear on the screen, the people who identified themselves as more conservative (rating themselves somewhere between 1 and 5 on the initial questionnaire) pressed the “usual” button 47 percent of the time instead of switching to the correct button.

By comparison, the “liberals” who placed themselves between -5 and -1 on the questionnaire responded more readily to the new signal and achieved the slightly lower error rate of 37 percent.

Brain recordings taken using electroencephalogram (EEG) technology showed that liberals had twice as much activity in a deep region called the anterior cingulate cortex. This area of the brain is thought to act as a mental brake by helping the mind recognize “no-go” situations where it must refrain from the usual course of action.

Liberals were much better at dealing with and resolving conflicts in the experiment:

Analyzing the data, [Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study] said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

The study suggests that liberals are more open to new social, scientific and religious ideas, Sulloway said. He pointed to the historical record, saying, “There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science.”

Speaking up for conservative brains, study author Amodio said it would be a mistake to conclude that liberal brains are better than conservatives’. He suggested that the tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing, depending on the situation.

Really? That is an interesting assertion because it is impossible to imagine a situation in which ignoring pertinent information could produce a useful analysis.

The study seems to verify another assumption many on the left have made about conservatives: They are easily fooled.

What America Hears When Bush Speaks: “Blah Blah”

Trish

It finally seems like most Americans view George W. Bush as the bull-headed, tunnel-visioned, arrogant jerk we do. A new ABC/Washington Post poll shows his citizens have given up on their president.

Bush’s approval rating among political independents — the center of American politics — is at a career low, 25 percent

Just 28 percent think Bush — long seen as inflexible on the war — will use the report to adjust his Iraq policy. Sixty-six percent think he’ll stick with his war policy no matter what the Petraeus report says…

Americans, by nearly 2-1, disapprove of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq, 65 percent to 34 percent — around where it’s been for most of the last year and a half. His broader job approval rating is almost identical: Just 33 percent approve of his work in office overall, matching his career low. He hasn’t seen majority approval in an ABC/Post poll since January 2005.

And it’s not just folks like Pensito Review readers and writers — most of whom never liked Bush to begin with — who are down on him.

Bush’s approval rating among political independents — the center of American politics — is at a career low, 25 percent. He’s also at 25 percent approval among people who describe themselves as ideological moderates, matching his low in that group.

Americans also aren’t scared or convinced by the Bush, “If we leave the terrorists will follow us home” line.

There’s little public acceptance of two of the chief arguments against withdrawal — that leaving Iraq in its current state would make the United States more vulnerable, and indeed that victory in Iraq is necessary for victory in the broader U.S. war on terrorism.

Just 22 percent of Americans say withdrawing from Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism occurring in the United States. Half as many say the opposite — that remaining in Iraq increases the risk — while most by far, 65 percent, think the risk of an attack is about the same either way.

I don’t know if my fellow Americans are getting smarter or have just given up hoping Bush will be better.

Measuring the Prez Candidates’ Internet Share

Buck Banks

From the very fringes of the 2008 presidential campaign comes the SIPP Index, a weekly metric compiled by an Internet consulting firm that purports to measure each candidate’s share of the Web. It is taken to be an indicator of how well the candidates are reaching people across the Internet.

The Spartan Internet Political Performance (SIPP) Index is the first quantitative metric to measure the Internet-wide performance of each Presidential candidate for the 2008 election. The Index is comprised of over 650 quantitative factors measuring the level of support and how well each candidate is connecting with individuals across the Internet. The score for each candidate represents their overall Internet market share.

If the race heats up and the Internet becomes a bigger factor, the SIPP could become an interesting indicator.

Among the myriad polls and measuring schemes that clog the info stream the SIPP ranks among the most esoteric. Reflecting as it does both the polls and the punditry, right now the SIPP doesn’t add much to the overall conversation about the campaign:

Spartan Internet Consulting has released the Political Performance Index results for the week of August 30 – September 5, with Hillary Clinton strengthening her second position ranking with 11.71 percent. The most notable gainers included Chris Dodd up 0.28 percent, John McCain up 0.30 percent and Fred Thompson up 0.22 percent.

Currently maintaining the top three positions are Barack Obama, 20.65 percent, Hillary Clinton, 11.71 percent and Ron Paul with 11.36 percent. The largest decliner this week was Rudy Giuliani, down 0.60 percent.

Perhaps the most significant SIPP finding is the vast gap between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Obama’s MySpace site rocks! Everyone says Ron Paul has a huge Internet following, and that’s pretty clear from his 11.36 percent ranking. His closest rival is Mitt Romney at 8.83 percent. The rest of the Republican field is in the 1-3 percent range, except for John McCain who has a respectable 5.63 share.

So what does it mean? Like most polls at this point of the campaign, probably not much. But if the race heats up and the Internet becomes a bigger factor in pushing opinion, the SIPP could become an interesting indicator.