Republicans have good reason to oppose Obamacare, but illegal immigration? Not to diminish its importance as an issue, but really? Illegal immigration is more important than foreign policy and our pursuit of obscenely expensive foreign wars? More important than our economy and the job market? More important than our tax system? More important than domestic business regulation or international trade?

I don’t see how illegal immigration, which largely benefits the United States due to its influx of cheap labor, could even land itself in the top five issues facing our nation.

So why does Ann Coulter, the wicked witch of shock-conservative talking heads, think it’s so important?

Then it hit me.

Republican leaders want to counter illegal immigration in order to prevent latinos from voting for Democrats.

Latinos make up 9% of the US voting population, and collectively are growing at a much faster rate than the US population as a whole. They’re a coveted voting demographic who tend to favor Democrats by a wide margin: 65% of latino voters are registered Democrats, while only 22% are registered Republicans. There are two reasons for the demographic’s growth. The first is the group’s unusually high fertility rate. The second is that illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico into the US tend to rear children here, and their children become US citizens upon their birth.

Considering that 45% of US population growth after 2030 is projected to come from latino births and that latino voters strongly favor Democratic candidates, the Republican party is in a bit of a bind. If this trend continues, Democrats could be in a position to consolidate control of the house and the senate for a long time; perhaps as long as they did in the 20th century (from 1933 to 1995). For Republicans, then, restricting illegal immigration is not a fight about the party’s values. The party’s position is not a result of a careful assessment of policy options. Rather, restricting illegal immigration is a fight for the continued existence of the Republican Party, period.

“Only one candidate is right on the two most important issues” - Ann Coulter

In Washington State, there is an important initiative being put to a public vote that will determine if Washington will maintain its backwards and competition-stifling liquor sales monopoly. It’s called I-1183, and it’s being backed by Republicans (including the Attorney General, Rob McKenna), business leaders (including most notably Costco), libertarians, independents, and the state’s largest newspaper, The Seattle Times. Its detractors primarily fall into two groups: rural social conservatives and national liquor distributors. Big money has been spent on both sides, with most of the money in support of 1183 coming from Costco, and most (if not all) of the money in opposition of 1183 coming from national liquor distributors.

Why do big liquor distributors oppose 1183? Because under the current system, the Washington State Liquor Control Board is the sole buyer of liquor available for sale in the state, which locks in oversized profit margins for the big liquor distributors. If 1183 were to pass, liquor retailers could bargain with liquor distributors for the best prices and could choose not to carry certain brands (or liquor from certain distributors) that carry an excessive markup.

The Costco-financed ‘Yes on 1183′ campaign has been met with tens of thousands of vocal supporters, whereas their opposition seems to have either significantly-less supporters, or supporters who are much less vocal than those in the ‘Yes’ camp.

For an objective comparison, here are the numbers from each sides’ respective Facebook fanpages:

Yes on 1183‘s Facebook Page*:

• 35,147 ‘likes’/fans
• Six fanpages (one official page, five unauthorized/duplicate fanpages each with less than 80 ‘likes’)
• Timeline posts with up to 377 ‘likes’
• Timeline posts with up to 77 comments
• Polls with 1000+ responses

No on 1183‘s Facebook Page*:

In summary, 1183 supporters are absolutely trouncing their opponents–on the web, at least.

The ‘Yes’ camp has more than 18 times as many ‘likes’/fans as the ‘No’ camp, 6.5 times more ‘likes’ on its timeline updates/posts, more than 7 times as many peak comments on its timeline posts, and is using polls to great effect.

All this data begs the question…does ‘No on 1183′ have lots of real supporters, or is their campaign using its large budget to falsely create the appearance of grassroots support (also known as astroturfing)? The data on Facebook points to the latter, but we cannot rely on just one far-from-ideal dataset to answer our question. Doing so would be a failure of scientific and statistical rigor because Facebook is likely not representative of the state’s voting population.

There is another problem that complicates the route to finding an answer: public choice theory. The theory illuminates a common problem in democratic politics: minority special interest groups who stand to gain from changes oftentimes make themselves more vocal than those of indifferent majorities with little to lose. This could explain the gap in visible support of 1183–perhaps voters are evenly split on the issue, but the supporters of 1183 just happen to be much more vocal than its opponents.

So, which side is doing the astroturfing?

Neither side of the 1183 issue is totally innocent of astroturfing, but it is ‘No on 1183′ that is certainly guiltier.

Costco’s support for 1183 is largely self-serving, and it just so happens that their call for change has been met with quite a bit of support from individuals and politicians of all types (Democrats excluded). Big liquor distributors are likewise self-serving in their opposition to 1183, but because they’ve found themselves on the wrong side of a wedge issue that has widespread support, they’ve had to resort to a determined campaign of misinformation in an effort to confuse voters about what would happen if 1183 were to pass, and they’ve attempted to create the illusion that all firefighters, first-responders, and law enforcement professionals in the state are on their side, which isn’t true, either.

Oddly enough, my favorite news source (The New York Times) is one that I often find myself at odds with. Usually it’s limited to economist and champion-of-the-left Paul Krugman, what with his defense of big government and socialist policies, but occasionally I find other problems with their reporting.

While reading Binyamin Appelbaum’s piece for NYT’s The Caucus blog, I came upon an egregious error that I must point out:

Subprime Mortgage Lending

Earlier in the [Republican] debate, Michele Bachmann suggested that the federal government caused the boom in subprime mortgage lending by pushing banks to lower “platinum level” lending standards.

[...]

The assertion [...] mischaracterizes the historical relationship between the government and banks. Regulators can sometimes prevent banks from acting, but there is almost no evidence that the government can push banks to make loans they don’t want to make. This point has been underscored over the last two years, as the Obama administration has begged and pleaded with banks to start making loans, and banks have largely declined to do so.

Banks did make subprime loans in large numbers, and the reason they did so, according to their own executives, was that they saw a chance to make lots of money.

Has Mr. Appelbaum ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? It’s often been pointed to as one of the partial causes of the subprime mortgage/debt meltdown of 2007-2011. The CRA requires banks to lend money to lower-income and less-creditworthy borrowers, which consequently increases future loan losses and imperils the creditworthiness of banks, potentially risking the health of the entire economy.

REYKJAVIK, Iceland — A polar-bear display for the zoo. Free towels at public swimming pools. A “drug-free Parliament by 2020.” Iceland’s Best Party, founded in December by a comedian, Jón Gnarr, to satirize his country’s political system, ran a campaign that was one big joke. Or was it? In the depressed aftermath of the country’s financial collapse, the Best Party emerged in May as the biggest winner in Reykjavik’s elections, with 34.7 percent of the vote, and Gnarr — who also promised a classroom of kindergartners he would build a Disneyland at the airport — is the fourth mayor in four years of a city that is home to more than one-third of the island’s 320,000 people.

In his acceptance speech he tried to calm the fears of the other 65.3 percent.

“No one has to be afraid of the Best Party, because it is the best party. If it wasn’t, it would be called the Worst Party or the Bad Party. We would never work with a party like that,” he said.

His party won six of the City Council’s 15 seats, and Gnarr needed a coalition partner, but he ruled out any party whose members had not seen all five seasons of “The Wire.”

The Best Party’s members include a who’s who of Iceland’s punk-rock scene. The new government granted free admission to swimming pools for everyone younger than 18.

“Just because something is funny doesn’t mean it isn’t serious,” said Gnarr, whose foreign-relations experience includes a radio show in which he regularly crank-called the White House, the CIA, the FBI and police stations in the Bronx, N.Y., to see if they had found his wallet.

The polar-bear idea, for example, was not totally facetious. As a result of climate change, a few polar bears have swum to Iceland in recent years and been shot. Better, Gnarr said, to capture them and put them in the zoo.

The free towels? That evolved from an idea to attract more tourists by attaining spa status for the city’s public pools, which have seawater and sulfur baths. For accreditation under certain European Union rules, however, a spa has to offer free towels, so that became a campaign slogan.

Gnarr, born in Reykjavik as Jón Gunnar Kristinsson to a policeman and a kitchen worker, was not a model child. At 11, he decided school was useless to his future as a circus clown or pirate and refused to learn anymore. At 14, he was sent to a boarding school for troubled teenagers and stayed until he was 16, when he left school for good.

Last winter, he opened a Best Party website and started writing surreal “political” articles.

Party anthem

The campaign released a popular video set to Tina Turner’s “The Best,” in which Gnarr posed with a stuffed polar bear and petted a rock, while joining his supporters in singing about the Best Party.

“A lot of us are singers,” said Óttarr Proppé, the third-ranking member of the Best Party, who was with the cult rock band HAM and the punk band Rass.

Proppé now sits on the city’s executive board, where he will be deciding matters such as how much money to allocate for roads.

Fed-up Icelanders elect a comedian – Seattle Times

“Interesting graphic; however, the President (or the party he/she is a member of) has little to do with any job gains or losses during his/her term. The economy is a beast much larger and more complex than the federal government, and consequently cannot be lorded over by the chief of the Executive Branch.

A good example is the economy under President Bill Clinton, which soared (but some or much of it was a bubble). There is no way that such a massive rise in wealth could be attributed to one man (such as President Clinton). His influence is relatively small; a drop in the bucket.

Actions that affect the economy are so numerous (the Fed’s interest rate policy, the behavior of private-sector banks, changes in regulatory policy/legislation, consumer behavior, currency fluctuations, behavior of other central banks/treasuries, the business cycle, et cetera) that it would be overly simplistic to isolate a single action (the election of one President, or another) as the root cause of an economic malaise (or an economic boom), as this graphic clearly attempts to do. But considering the source of the infograph (it was created by Obama’s own administration, right?), I’m not surprised that it’s so self-congratulatory…it’s really downright propagandist and sort of (intellectually) disgusting.”

Does anyone else feel that World Economic Forum in Davos is elitist, all talk, no action, and a perfect representation of crony capitalism? The off the record nature of conversations only bolsters my argument. Talk away folks.

My response:

The older I get, the more I realize the value of conversations conducted in secret. One doesn’t have to worry about the oversensitive media creating an overblown polemic over some logical, agreeable, yet also out-of-context and outwardly controversial statement (Ex. Harry Reid’s observant remark that Barack Obama became the country’s first black president because he had “no Negro dialect.”)

Likewise, Obama’s meeting with House Republicans this week in Baltimore should’ve been (and indeed was initially planned to be) conducted in secret in order to foster dialogue, but was opened to the media as a result of secret meetings’ perceived incompatibility with Obama’s pledge to be the most transparent administration ever.

It just goes to show that even seemingly universally-positive values like transparency can become negative as you approach their extremes (liberalism, socialism, libertarianism, and conservatism are also examples of ideologies that become dysfunctional, regressive, and destructive as you approach implementations of their extremes).

Anyways, getting back to Davos, you are exactly right to call them elitists. Davos is where elitists feel comfortable amongst their brethren. And you’re also correct in your characterization of Davos as “all talk … no action.” Davos is basically a week-long press conference for elitists to trumpet their ideas and pat themselves on the back, coupled with receptions and parties, networking, and a little skiing. Little is actually accomplished AT Davos. However, the value of Davos can be seen in two key ways:

1) its benefit of expanded dialogue between business/political/cultural leaders,

and 2) the inception of many relationships between the elitist attendees that flower into real-life business relationships, which “greases the wheels of capitalism,” by the creation of useful partnerships.

I write this on a BlackBerry engineered in Canada and built in China, inside a centi-million dollar condominium building financed by major transnational banks. The existence of these two simple things (a cellphone and a condo building) are shining examples of the benefit to society that comes from cross-border business relationships–some of them made at places like Davos. So complain all you like, but the truth is that you likely benefit greatly from the World Economic Forum in Davos, whether you recognize it or not.

(I should note that I am not advocating corrupt crony capitalism between business and government. Rather, I’ve tried to illustrate my belief that elitists hosting a meeting like this and fostering incestuous business relationships is not in any way negative, nor should pejorative words like crony capitalism be used to describe the WEF.)

…

The name “Sajjil” means “baked clay,” a reference to a story in the Quran, Islam’s holy book, in which birds sent by God drive off an enemy army attacking the holy city of Mecca by pelting them with stones of baked clay,” and this religious reference is a clear sign that Iran shouldn’t be trusted with missiles or nuclear technology. Iran is a theocracy, and hence they have different motivations than secular democracies. Instead of attempting to maintain order and advance their society, their goals may be dictated by an outdated and silly text (the Koran), hence they cannot be trusted with weapons.

It’s frightening that ideologues have taken a country hostage by appealing to their people’s devotion to an ancient text.

One of the reasons that the United States has been relatively stable since its founding (relied on but a single constitution, et cetera) is that we have a completely secular government that eschews fundamentalism. Thomas Jefferson, in a treaty with Tripoli (Barbary pirates), illustrated it best:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of [Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Perhaps a lack of fundamentalist ideals means peace, in a sense.

Iran tests long-range missile, raises ire of West – SeattleTimes.com

Afghanistan has successfully resisted being conquered by Alexander the Great, imperial Great Britain, the USSR, and the United States is poised to add its name to the list. The country’s resilience has nothing to do with its technology or infrastructure, but rather its geography: the population is so spread out that it cannot be easily secured by troops. Taming Afghanistan is sort of like providing security for ships through the Gulf of Aden; when you’re dealing with an area that large and security forces cannot be everywhere at once, security measures are easily thwarted.

In Iraq, the country had a valuable asset that can be used to pay for infrastructure and security: its massive oil deposits. Afghanistan also has a profitable export industry, but it’s an industry that cannot be controlled and taxed by the government. That industry is opium. The earnings from Afghanistan’s opium production flow to warlords, corrupt politicians, and militant insurgents–all of them enemies of development and progress.

The third difficulty in securing Afghanistan lies across the border with Pakistan. Pakistan’s Federally-Administered Tribal Areas and Northwest Frontier Province are largely rural and are under the de facto control of Pashtun Pakistani Taliban. This means that, if the international community were able to secure and stabilize Afghanistan, there would still be militant Taliban fighters spilling over the border from Pakistan making trouble. A more ideal solution would be for the international community to occupy both Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, root out the Taliban in both places, and train locals and build infrastructure so that the areas could thrive without the Taliban. Proud Pakistani voters wouldn’t approve of that kind of operation, and their pragmatic President kowtows to his voters wishes.

All in all, the US occupation of Afghanistan looks to be a risky gamble.

Bir Tawil – Wikipedia

Via Microsiervos.