Politics – Page 9

(Some) Mormons against Proposition 8

John Wildermuth in the SF Chronicle:

The signs on the front lawn of former 49er quarterback Steve Young’s Peninsula home say “No on Prop. 8,” which normally wouldn’t be much of a story in the Bay Area, a gay-friendly region which is the center of opposition to the effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state.

But Young isn’t only a Hall of Fame quarterback. He’s also the great-great-great grandson of Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon church. The church has pushed hard and publicly for Prop. 8 and Mormons have pumped millions into the campaign.

…

Young also isn’t just any church member. During his years in the NFL, he was one of the nation’s most visible Mormons. He graduated from BYU, which was named for his ancestor, and received his law degree there. In a 1996 “60 Minute” interview, he said that he still had plans to go on the church mission he missed in college and had no problem tithing 10 percent of his earnings to the church. He retains close ties to Utah, married his wife, Barbara, at a temple in Hawaii and even served as narrator for a short video on the Mormon church and its history, done for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah.

Given all that, it’s surprising to see Young’s family lining up on the opposite side of the church, especially after Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City sent a letter last June that asked all California church members to do all they could to support the Prop. 8 effort by “donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.”

While it’s Barb Young’s name that appears on the checks, she made it clear in a statement issued today through Equality California that the contributions are a family affair.

“We believe ALL families matter and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8,” she said.

via Bob Morris

Apple: No on 8

Add Apple to the list of companies actively opposing California’s Proposition 8:

No on Prop 8
October 24, 2008
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employeesâ€™ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a personâ€™s fundamental rights â€” including the right to marry â€” should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

Update (speaking of Silicon Valley): Tom Campbell:

Republicans believe deeply that government should be limited. Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives. That’s why, as a Californian and a Republican who has held elective office at the federal and state levels, I will be voting No on Proposition 8.

Dean Baker on IOUSA

Which I haven’t seen. Follow the review link for a readable lesson in political economics.

Response to IOUSA

In case you’ve missed the hype, IOUSA is a documentary making the case that the U.S. budget is hopelessly out of control and that our current spending patterns will bankrupt our children. The film features such noteworthy characters as Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan, Robert “Don’t Regulate Credit Default Swaps” Rubin, and former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

This film should be viewed as part of a larger effort to dismantle Social Security and Medicare, the country’s core safety net programs. The reality is that our budget is essentially fine, it is our health care system that is out of control. But fixing health care would require going after the drug companies, the insurance companies, and highly paid medical specialists. But those folks are all powerful, so the IOUSA crew went after old people instead.

You can get CEPR’s movie review here.

Now that there’s talk of a second stimulus package floating around (and we’d have to think it’s likely), it’s interesting to go back and look at this chart of the effectiveness of various stimulus options, as calculated by Moody’s Economy.com last January.

The measure is the efficiency of each option in boosting GDP, in dollars of GDP per dollar of tax cut or spending increase.

The accompanying article has more detail, including a discussion of why an extension of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits or increased food stamps has more effect than simple tax cuts for rebates.

Nir Rosen: How We Lost the War We Won

A long and pessimistic report by Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone, after and about a harrowing trip into Taliban-held Afghanistan. Iraq was (and is) bad enough, and Afghanistan is not Iraq. I’ll quote a bit of it here, but do read the whole thing.

How We Lost the War We Won

[Dr. Khalil] joined the Taliban early, eventually serving as a commander in a northern district. He says he is fighting to restore a government of Islamic law, but that Mullah Omar does not have to be the leader again. God willing, he adds, it will take no more than 30 years to rid Afghanistan of foreigners.

…

The Bush administration is placing its hopes on presidential elections in Afghanistan next year, but everyone I speak with in Kabul agrees that the elections will be a joke. “The Americans are gung-ho about elections,” a longtime nongovernmental official tells me. “But it will only exacerbate ethnic tensions.” In Pashtun areas controlled by the Taliban, registration would be virtually impossible, and voting would invoke a death sentence — effectively disenfranchising the country’s dominant ethnic group. “You can’t fix the insurgency with an election,” a senior U.N. official tells me. “It’s a socioeconomic phenomenon that goes well beyond the border of Afghanistan.” Real elections would require the cooperation of the Taliban — and that, in turn, would require negotiations with the Taliban. The war, in effect, is already lost.

“This can’t be solved other than by talking to the Taliban,” says a top diplomat in Kabul. A leading aid official adds that it is important to understand the ideological goal of the Taliban: “They don’t have an international-terrorist agenda — they have an Afghanistan agenda. We might not agree with their agenda for the country, but that’s not our war.” Former Taliban leaders agree that only talks will end the war. “If the U.S. deals with Pakistan and negotiates with higher-level Taliban,” says one, “then it could reach a deal.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Negotiating with the Taliban would also enable the Americans to take advantage of the sharp divisions within the insurgency. Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, has been openly criticized by a rival named Siirajudin Haqqani, who has called for Omar to be replaced. In provinces like Ghazni, the Taliban leadership is now divided between commanders loyal to Omar and men who follow Haqqani. A recent meeting between supporters of the two men in the Pakistani city of Peshawar reportedly descended into fighting when an Omar official threw his tea glass at a Haqqani man. The internal split provides an opening — if U.S. intelligence is smart enough to exploit it.
“The U.S. should try to weaken the Taliban,” a former Taliban commander tells me. “They should make groups, divide and conquer. If someone wants to use the division between Haqqani and Omar, they can.”

The Bush administration believes it can stop the Taliban by throwing money into clinics and schools. But even humanitarian officials scoff at the idea. “If you gave jobs to the Viet Cong, would they stop fighting?” asks one. “Two years ago you could build a road or a bridge in a village and say, ‘Please don’t let the Taliban come in.’ But now you’ve reached the stage where the hearts-and-minds business doesn’t work.”

Officials on the ground in Afghanistan say it is foolhardy to believe that the Americans can prevail where the Russians failed. At the height of the occupation, the Soviets had 120,000 of their own troops in Afghanistan, buttressed by roughly 300,000 Afghan troops. The Americans and their allies, by contrast, have 65,000 troops on the ground, backed up by only 137,000 Afghan security forces — and they face a Taliban who enjoy the support of a well-funded and highly organized network of Islamic extremists. “The end for the Americans will be just like for the Russians,” says a former commander who served in the Taliban government. “The Americans will never succeed in containing the conflict. There will be more bleeding. It’s coming to the same situation as it did for the communist forces, who found themselves confined to the provincial capitals.”

Simply put, it is too late for Bush’s “quiet surge” — or even for Barack Obama’s plan for a more robust reinforcement — to work in Afghanistan. More soldiers on the ground will only lead to more contact with the enemy, and more air support for troops will only lead to more civilian casualties that will alienate even more Afghans. Sooner or later, the American government will be forced to the negotiating table, just as the Soviets were before them.

“The rise of the Taliban insurgency is not likely to be reversed,” says Abdulkader Sinno, a Middle East scholar and the author of Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond. “It will only get stronger. Many local leaders who are sitting on the fence right now — or are even nominally allied with the government — are likely to shift their support to the Taliban in the coming years. What’s more, the direct U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is now likely to spill over into Pakistan. It may be tempting to attack the safe havens of the Taliban and Al Qaeda across the border, but that will only produce a worst-case scenario for the United States. Attacks by the U.S. would attract the support of hundreds of millions of Muslims in South Asia. It would also break up Pakistan, leading to a civil war, the collapse of its military and the possible unleashing of its nuclear arsenal.”

In the same speech in which he promised a surge, Bush vowed that he would never allow the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan. But they have already returned, and only negotiation with them can bring any hope of stability. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan “are all theaters in the same overall struggle,” the president declared, linking his administration’s three greatest foreign-policy disasters in one broad vision. In the end, Bush said, we must have “faith in the power of freedom.”

But the Taliban have their own faith, and so far, they are winning. On my last day in Kabul, a Western aid official reminds me of the words of a high-ranking Taliban leader, who recently explained why the United States will never prevail in Afghanistan.

“You Westerners have your watches,” the leader observed. “But we Taliban have time.”

via Juan Cole

Cuban oil?

From the Guardian. If the find pans out (or whatever the oil-prospecting term is), the political and economic implications are profound. Per capita, that’s a lot of oil.

20bn barrel oil discovery puts Cuba in the big league

Friends and foes have called Cuba many things – a progressive beacon, a quixotic underdog, an oppressive tyranny — but no one has called it lucky, until now.

Mother nature, it emerged this week, appears to have blessed the island with enough oil reserves to vault it into the ranks of energy powers. The government announced there may be more than 20bn barrels of recoverable oil in offshore fields in Cuba’s share of the Gulf of Mexico, more than twice the previous estimate.

If confirmed, it puts Cuba’s reserves on par with those of the US and into the world’s top 20. Drilling is expected to start next year by Cuba’s state oil company Cubapetroleo, or Cupet.

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Fareed Zakaria’s new-this-summer show on CNN, Fareed Zakaria GPS (as in Global Public Square) isn’t always the most exciting hour on TV, and I find his interviewing style somewhat annoying. But from time to time the interviews are terrific, whether it’s because Zakaria is a better interviewer than I can recognize, or because he finds some great guests.

For starters, watch his Sept 28 interview with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and an earlier one with Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew (I don’t know that the whole Lee Kuan Yew interview is online).

Suppose Obama wins—what then?

A meditation by David Kaiser.

A new era?

Obama, however, will if he wins take over the government of the most divided country since 1860—in some ways, more polarized even than at that time.

…

The Republican Party will remain after November perhaps the most rigidly disciplined and narrowly based party in American history. Even the opposition crises in the two previous great crises in American life included a much broader range of opinions than today’s Republicans.

…

Just yesterday the Wall Street Journal editorial page lamented that the Democrats may be stronger than they have been since 1933 (they should have said 1935) or 1965, and suggested that the country would not vote them back if they realized this. In fact they will not be that strong—their majorities were much larger then—but in any case we will not be going all the way back either to the beginning of the last crisis (when 25% of the population was unemployed) or to the end of the last High. Obama is winning above all because he wants to usher in a less ideological age. That is a gamble, but so far he is winning it. But if he succeeds as President it will be with new measures, new men and women, and new rhetoric. No past, however glorious, returns—because the new generations that make the future do not remember it or revere it. The great crisis will lay the old order to rest and create a new one. That is the way of all organic life.

A raw deal?

Joe Stiglitz isn’t exactly thrilled with Paulson’s Plan B.

Joseph Stiglitz: Paulson tries again

Britain showed at least that it still believed in some sort of system of accountability: heads of banks resigned. Nothing like this in the US. Britain understood that it made no sense to pour money into banks and have them pour out money to shareholders. The US only restricted the banks from increasing their dividends. The Treasury has sought to create a picture for the public of toughness, yet behind the scenes it is busy reassuring the banks not to worry, that it’s all part of a show to keep voters and Congress placated. What is clear is that we will not have voting shares. Wall Street will have our money, but we will not have a full say in what should be done with it. A glance at the banks’ recent track record of managing risk gives taxpayers every reason to be concerned.

For all the show of toughness, the details suggest the US taxpayer got a raw deal. There is no comparison with the terms that Warren Buffett secured when he provided capital to Goldman Sachs. Buffett got a warrant – the right to buy in the future at a price that was even below the depressed price at the time. Paulson got for the US a warrant to buy in the future – at whatever the prevailing price at the time. The whole point of the warrant is so we participate in some of the upside, as the economy recovers from the crisis, and as the financial system starts to work.

The Paulson plan responded to Congress’s demand to have something like a warrant, but as a matter of form, not substance. Buffett got warrants equal to 100% of the value of what he put in. America’s taxpayers got just 15%. Moreover, as George Soros has pointed out, in a few years time, when the economy is recovered, the banks shouldn’t need to turn to the government for capital. The government should have issued convertible shares that gave the right to the government to automatically share in the gain in share price.

California Proposition 11: Yes, butâ€¦

Proposition 11: Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Creates 14-member redistricting commission responsible for drawing new district lines for State Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts. Requires State Auditor to randomly select commission members from voter applicant pool to create a commission with five members from each of the two largest political parties, and four members unaffiliated with either political party. Requires nine votes to approve final district maps. Establishes standards for drawing new lines, including respecting the geographic integrity of neighborhoods and encouraging geographic compactness. Permits State Legislature to draw lines for congressional districts subject to these standards. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably no significant increase in state redistricting costs. (Initiative 07-0077.) (Full Text)

I’ll be voting yes on Prop 11, but with no particular enthusiasm. Peter Schrag, writing in the Sacramento Bee, gets it pretty much right:

California’s Proposition 11, which would take the power of drawing legislative districts out of the hands of the politicians who are most vitally interested in it, won’t do much to reduce partisanship in Sacramento or solve most of California’s other problems.

But let’s pass the thing so we can get this old saw off the agenda and attend to some reforms that might make a real difference.

My list of reforms (proportional representation and public campaign financing are at the top) isn’t the same as Schrag’s, but we come to the same conclusion. I’ll vote for Prop 11, but I won’t lose any sleep if it fails.

J’accuse!

~~Émile~~ Frank Schaeffer, 2000 supporter of John McCain, writes in the Baltimore Sun:

John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as “not one of us,” I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence.

At a Sarah Palin rally, someone called out, “Kill him!” At one of your rallies, someone called out, “Terrorist!” Neither was answered or denounced by you or your running mate, as the crowd laughed and cheered. At your campaign event Wednesday in Bethlehem, Pa., the crowd was seething with hatred for the Democratic nominee â€” an attitude encouraged in speeches there by you, your running mate, your wife and the local Republican chairman.

Shame!
â€¦

Obama’s an Arab?

John McCain: “No, ma’am, he’s a decent family man.”

Good to know. Sheesh.

Update: Here’s Juan Cole.

That confused woman probably did not mean “Arab” but “Muslim.” (She later said she was afraid America would become a Muslim country.)

But Arab is a linguistic identity whereas Muslim is a religious one. Not all Arabs are Muslims. The Copts in Egypt (6% of the population) speak Arabic but are Christians. Likewise the Maronites in Lebanon and many Chaldeans and Assyrians in Iraq. About 7,000 Jews living in Morocco speak Arabic at home.

If not all Arabs are Muslims, only a minority of Muslims is Arab. Iranians (70 million strong) are not Arabs. Turks are not Arabs. Pakistanis are not Arabs. Malaysians and Indonesians are not Arabs. Nigerians and Senegalese are not Arabs. But all these national or ethnic groups are predominantly Muslim.

Worse than the lady’s confusion between Arab and Muslim were her further obvious confusion between Muslim and dangerous.

Mr. McCain, Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans are decent, family-oriented citizens. The only thing wrong with calling Obama by either of these modifiers is that it would be incorrect. He is not an Arab ethnically, but rather northern European and Luo (Nilotic). He is not a Muslim but a Christian.

McCain’s insinuation that “Arabs” (whether he and his friend actually meant “Muslims” or not) are not decent and not family-oriented and not citizens is obscene.

Ralph Nader, one of McCain’s rivals for the presidency, is an Arab-American, and McCain owes Mr. Nader and all Arab-Americans, indeed, all Americans, a huge apology.

Doing the right thing?

If you listened to the This American Life episode that I recommended the other day (if you didn’t, it’s not too late), and even if you didn’t, you’ll find this development interesting—and encouraging.

Paul Krugman: Doing the right thing?

A tentative cheer: Paulson may have been dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing to rescue the financial system:

Having tried without success to unlock frozen credit markets, the Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks to try to restore confidence in the financial system, according to government officials.

Treasury officials say the just-passed $700 billion bailout bill gives them the authority to inject cash directly into banks that request it. Such a move would quickly strengthen banks’ balance sheets and, officials hope, persuade them to resume lending. In return, the law gives the Treasury the right to take ownership positions in banks, including healthy ones.

Let’s give thanks to Chris Dodd, who insisted on the provision that makes this possible — and to Gordon Brown, for showing the way.

Update: Nouriel Roubini has some of the back story on how the TARP came to include provisions that could be used to recapitalize banks. From early on, there was indeed a feverish push by a number of economists, myself included, to get some channel for public capital injections in return for equity stakes into the plan. I reluctantly called for passage of the final bill because it did include such a channel, although it didn’t require that Paulson use it. There were a lot of accusations against those of us who took that position — claims that we were caving in, or trying to have it both ways. But the equity issue was crucial — and may now be the thing that turns a useless plan into something that really does a lot of good.

The five worst Supreme Court decisions of the past 50 years

Jack Balkin.

The Five Worst Supreme Court Decisions of the Past Fifty Years

David Savage of the L.A. Times asked me to list the worst Supreme Court decisions of the past fifty years—dating back to 1958. It’s hard to say what makes a decision bad. It could be an incorrect reading of precedent, a mangling of history, or a failure to exercise judgment and understand the long-term consequences of a decision. In any case, here is a list of five decisions that I think, for various reasons, are the worst of the past half-century, and why I think they were bad.

click for the list

Palin on the dangers of Medicare

Paul Krugman.

Unbelievable. Sarah Palin finished her closing remarks by quoting Ronald Reagan:

It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.

When did he say this? It was on a recording he made for Operation Coffeecup — a campaign organized by the American Medical Association to block the passage of Medicare. Doctors’ wives were supposed to organize coffee klatches for patients, where they would play the Reagan recording, which declared that Medicare would lead us to totalitarianism.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Dean Baker: the stock market is not the economy

Economics Lesson for Reporters: Other Things Equal, a High Stock Market is a Transfer of Wealth from People Who Don’t Own Stock to People Who Do

Reporters on economics and business should know that, but from the reporting on the bailout, it is clear that very few do. There seems to be a view that stock market wealth is money from heaven.

Ownership of stock is a claim to the future profits of the corporations whose stock is owned. If the value of stocks increase because the economy is expected to grow more rapidly, and therefore future profits will be larger, then it is reasonable to say that a higher stock market is good news for everyone.

But suppose the stock market goes up because the markets think that the government will tax school teachers and fire fighters to hand money to Wall Street banks. Is this one good for everyone?

Finally, suppose that the Wall Street titans haven’t a clue what future profits will be (these are the folks that pushed the NASDAQ above 5000), and a rise in the stock market is driven by irrational exuberance. In this case, the higher stock market simply means that stockholders have a greater claim on the same amount of national wealth. This would be like handing out a trillion dollar bills and giving them only to shareholders. That’s good for the shareholders, but not for the rest of the country.

It would be nice if the folks who report the news understood that the stock market is not the economy.

—Dean Baker

Dean Baker: Why Bail?

Let’s just quote Dean Baker, shall we? (If the apparent date of the post is correct, this went up early Monday morning, before the House voted the bailout bill down.

Why Bail? The Banks Have a Gun Pointed at Their Head and Are Threatening to Pull the Trigger

If you have a real story, you don’t have to make up phony stories. That’s pretty straightforward.

I’ve heard lots of phony stories. Much of the country’s political and economic leadership has been running around raising the prospect of the Great Depression and a breakdown in the banking system (I actually had taken the latter seriously). These stories are absolutely not true.

There is no plausible scenario under which the no bailout scenario gives us a Great Depression. There is a more plausible scenario (but highly unlikely) that the bailout will give us a Great Depression. There is no way that the failure to do a bailout will lead to more than a very brief failure of the financial system. We will not lose our modern system of payments.

At this point I cannot identify a single good reason to do the bailout.

The basic argument for the bailout is that the banks are filled with so much bad debt that the banks can’t trust each other to repay loans. This creates a situation in which the system of payments breaks down. That would mean that we cannot use our ATMs or credit cards or cash checks.

That is a very frightening scenario, but this is not where things end. The Federal Reserve Board would surely step in and take over the major money center banks so that the system of payments would begin functioning again. The Fed was prepared to take over the major banks back in the 80s when bad debt to developing countries threatened to make them insolvent. It is inconceivable that it has not made similar preparations in the current crisis.

In other words, the worst case scenario is that we have an extremely scary day in which the markets freeze for a few hours. Then the Fed steps in and takes over the major banks. The system of payments continues to operate exactly as before, but the bank executives are out of their jobs and the bank shareholders have likely lost most of their money. In other words, the banks have a gun pointed to their heads and are threatening to pull the trigger unless we hand them $700 billion.

If we are not worried about this worst case scenario (to be clear, I wouldn’t want to see it), then why should we do the bailout?

There has been a mountain of scare stories and misinformation circulated to push the bailout. Yes, banks have tightened credit. Yes, we are in a recession. But the problem is not a freeze up of the banking system. The problem is the collapse of an $8 trillion housing bubble. (It was remarkable how many so-called experts somehow could not see the housing bubble as it grew to ever more dangerous levels. It is even more remarkable that many of these experts still don’t recognize the bubble even as its collapse sinks the economy and the financial system.) The decline in housing prices to date has already cost the economy $4 trillion to $5 trillion in housing equity. This would be expected to lead to a decline in annual consumption on the order of $160 billion to $300 billion.

Given the loss of housing equity, I have actually been surprised that the downturn has not been sharper. Homeowners had been consuming based on their home equity. Much of that equity has now disappeared with the collapse of the bubble. We would expect that their consumption would fall. We also would expect that banks would be reluctant to lend to people who no longer have any collateral.

This is the story of the downturn and of course the bailout does almost nothing to counter this drop in demand. At best, it will make capital available to some marginal lenders who would not otherwise receive loans. We should demand more for $700 billion.

For the record, the restrictions on executive pay and the commitment to give the taxpayers equity in banks in exchange for buying bad assets are jokes. These provisions are sops to provide cover. They are not written in ways to be binding. (And Congress knows how to write binding rules.)

Finally, the bailout absolutely can make things worse. We are going to be in a serious recession because of the collapse of the housing bubble. We will need effective stimulus measures to boost the economy and keep the recession from getting worse.

However, the $700 billion outlay on the bailout is likely to be used as an argument against effective stimulus. We have already seen voices like the Washington Post and the Wall Street funded Peterson Foundation arguing that the government will have to make serious cutbacks because of the bailout.

While their argument is wrong, these are powerful voices in national debates. If the bailout proves to be an obstacle to effective stimulus in future months and years, then the bailout could lead to exactly the sort of prolonged economic downturn that its proponents claim it is intended to prevent.

In short, the bailout rewards some of the richest people in the country for their incompetence. It provides little obvious economic benefit and could lead to long-term harm. That looks like a pretty bad deal.

Google, PG&E, and Levi Strauss, together again

Google joins PG&E and Levi Strauss in actively opposing California’s Proposition 8, the initiative constitutional amendment that would eliminate the existing right of same-sex couples to marry (in the phrasing on the November ballot).

PG&E:

“We are proud to join NO on 8 and Equality California to protect the freedom to marry for all Californians,” said PG&E Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Nancy McFadden. “For years, PG&E has advocated for equality and fairness in the workplace, and across California. In that same spirit, PG&E is honored to be a founding member of the Equality Business Advisory Council and urge our business colleagues to join us as we work to guarantee the same rights and freedoms for every Californian.”Â

Levi Strauss:

As a company with a long history of standing up for equality, civil rights and social justice on behalf of our employees and other stakeholders, we are proud to co-chair the business council with our friends at PG&E,â€ said John Anderson, President and CEO of Levi Strauss & Co.Â

Google :

As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions â€” Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay â€” we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.Â

However, while there are many objections to this proposition â€” further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text â€” it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 â€” we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology

The disappearing Bradley effect

Sam Wang again, moving from the effects of cell phones to the effect of race on polls.

The disappearing Bradley effect:

A hot topic among polling nerds is the “Bradley effect,” which occurs when a non-white (usually black) candidate falls short of opinion polls on Election Day when he/she runs against a white candidate. For this reason it has been suggested that support for Obama might be overstated — a hidden bonus for John McCain. Now comes a large-scale empirical study by Harvard political scientist Dan Hopkins. He finds that since the mid-1990s, the Bradley effect has disappeared. His paper is a must-read.

Category: Politics