Friday, December 5th, 2008

Time to repeal Prohibition?

75 years ago today, Prohibition (of Alcohol) ended in the US. Prohibition was started with one Constitutional Amendment (the 18th), and ended with another (th 21st).

Which Constitutional Amendment permitted the War on Drugs?

My two favorite drugs are caffeine and sugar (happily both are currently legal). I've never taken an illegal drug, and I doubt I ever will (even if they become legal). But the War on Drugs is an idiotic failure, as harmful to our society as Prohibition was. Can we please just call it quits?

FDA, DEA delenda est!
(1 comment | Leave a comment)

Monday, October 27th, 2008

A followup on the Ohio State Government's attack on Joe the Plumber

She needs to go to jail

Inspector general investigating access to Joe the Plumber's personal information

Monday, October 27, 2008 11:33 AM
Updated: Monday, October 27, 2008 05:48 PM
By Randy Ludlow
The Columbus Dispatch

Ohio's inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on "Joe the Plumber."

Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK'd the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.
...
Amid questions from the media and others about "Joe the Plumber," Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments.
Pretty sad when an abusive bureaucrat come up with a better story than that. His son lives with him, what would he be doind paying "child support"?
Reports state that he lives alone with a 13-year-old son.

"Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look" at them, Jones-Kelley said, citing a case where a lottery winner was found to owe past-due child support. "Our practice is to basically look at what is coming our way."
You know, the worst part about this is I can't figure out if it's worse if she's lying, or telling the truth. Because what she just said is that, whenever someone gets in the news, the DJFS people feel entitled to get their jollies by looking into that person's private life, and at any information the government might have about him or her.

So, you want government controlled health care? Think your medical records will be private from people like her?
Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles confirmed today that he is investigating the incident to determine if "Joe''s" records were legally accessed by Job and Family Services employees.

The use of a state computer system to search for information on Wurzelbacher is the fourth uncovered by The Dispatch.

Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland is satisfied that there are no political overtures to the check on Wurzelbacher, a spokesman said.
You know, if I were him, I'd be keeping my mouth shut right about now. Not betting my reputation that the investigators won't find anything, and that people will believe the investigations were honest.
(3 comments | Leave a comment)

So long, asshole

Good news from Alaska,

Sen. Ted Stevens guilty of all 7 felony charges

By Manu Raju
Posted: 10/27/08 04:02 PM [ET]
Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in history and patriarch of Alaska politics, was convicted Monday of all seven felony charges for making false statements.

The verdict could spell an ignominious end to the political career of a man who rose to be one of the most dominant figures in the Senate and helped transform Alaska in its 50 years of statehood.

Jurors deliberated from scratch Monday morning with the addition of an alternate juror, and in little more than five hours delivered a unanimous verdict on all counts. The verdict comes just eight days before Stevens faces the toughest reelection bid of his four-decade career.
I'm glad he was convicted, and will cheer next Tuesday when he loses re-election
(2 comments | Leave a comment)

Sunday, October 19th, 2008

Palin delivers for SNL

Yesterday I noted that Palin was going to be on SNL last night, and predicted "SNL will get the best ratings they've gotten this decade."

Last night, as I saw what a poor job SNL was doing promoting her appearance (Comcast's Guide entry for the show didn't even mention her), I was feeling a bit worried over the quality of my prediction.

It turns out I didn't need to worry.
Sarah Palin sets 'SNL' ratings record

Sarah Palin's visit to "Saturday Night Live" drew the show's highest overnight rating in 14 years.

Last night's telecast, hosted by Josh Brolin and featuring musical guest Adele, averaged a 10.7 rating and 24 share in 56 metered markets, according to Nielsen Media Research. That's the highest overnight 'SNL' average since a 1994 episode that was hosted by Nancy Kerrigan and featured musical guest Aretha Franklin.
Now I'm just disapointed I wussed on numbers. IIRC, SNL got a 6 rating last weekend (and was very happy with it). I wanted to predict they'd get a 9 last night, but chickened out. :-)
(Leave a comment)

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

Why "Joe the Plumber" matters

I've been watching this "Joe the Plumber" thing with a good deal of amusement. Because, on one level, it's amazingly stupid, and the idea that it could have a major effect on the US Presidential election is, frankly, nuts.

But.

OTOH, it's emblematic of why the US is the greatest country in the world.

How it began:

A relatively ordinary American decided to question the front runner to being the most powerful person in the world, and got the following response
It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too.

...

I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
I believe the correct term here is "epic fail".

We Americans are, by far, the most charitable people in the world. We give more to the less fortunate, of both our time and our money, than anyone else in the world. (And when the shit hits the fan elsewhere, we're the first there, with the best help.)

But, we are a people who look upward. Our ideal is the "self made man." Our iconic story is "rags to riches." We want our kids to do better than us. And our hero is Michael Phelps, not the guy who came in second place.

Now, as a matter of economics, what Obama said was imbecilic. More money in the hands of a crack-head, or an alcoholic, isn't "better for everybody" than more money in the hands of someone who's going to invest in wisely in a money making businesses.

As a matter of politics, it's worse. Because the last thing in the world a redistributionist wants for you to think about is "all the people behind you." "In front of me" are the people with tax attorneys and political connections who will take care of themselves. "Behind me" are the people Obama is going to "help." I'm screwed.

We don't think of ourselves as the "losers" who need the government's help. We're Americans, we're winners. Certainly those people in the mushy middle, the 15 - 20% who don't pay attention until about 2 - 3 weeks before the election, and who decide the election, don't think of themselves as "the people behind."

So that was a losing encounter for Obama. Oh, well. Happens all the time.

However, this one may cost him the election.

1: The people who decide President elections are just now actually starting to pay attention to what's going on. A month ago this would have disappeared. Now, it probably won't.

2: Joe isn't going away.

In most of the world, an ordinary person who was in Joe's position would duck his head and try to hide, in fear of what would happen to him after the politician won. We don't fear that in the US.

In most of the rest of the world, "Joe the Plumber" would be a nothing. He hasn't gone to the "right schools", he doesn't know the "right people", he's not a member of "the elite." He just wouldn't matter.

Here he's interviewed by Katie Couric about the Presidential Debate on national TV. And does well.

Joe's from Ohio. If Obama loses Ohio and Pennsylvania (next door neighbor, demographically similar, and the kind of place where Joe should wear well), you can pretty much kiss the election goodbye. Smearing him is another loser. Joe isn't running for office. What matters about him is his ideas. Every smear you throw at him is an admission that his ideas are unassailable.
(4 comments | Leave a comment)

Friday, September 5th, 2008

Snicker

The best joke I've seen about the candidates:
“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”
And, unlike Cheney, It's probably safe to go hunting with her. :-)

Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pensylvannia have all got a lot of hunters, and blue-collar union workers.

Anyone know when was the last time we even had a former blue-collar union (heck, I'll just limit it to "non-government employee union) member "in the White House"? (I'm assuming that Laura Bush was a Union member. Anyone know if I'm wrong?)
(Leave a comment)

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

Going for the Jugular

I detest Senator McCain. The chance of me voting for him in November is someonewhere between "slim" and "none". But I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. His announcement about Heller is a beautiful shot at Senator Obama
Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is an important right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.(Boldface mine)
Now that's "bringing a gun to a gun fight." :-)
(12 comments | Leave a comment)

Glorious

Well, we've now seen what it takes to get "Justice" Kennedy involved in a correctly decided decision: Don't let him write any part of it.

The US Supreme Court handed down two important decisions today: Davis v. the FEC and Heller v. DC. Both were 5-4, with those who give a damn about individual rights winning over those who love the government, in both cases.

First Davis... )

Now Heller.

Scalia's opinion was a masterwork. In order to keep his five votes, he had to limit the specific impact of the ruling to the facts of the case (for example: Heller said in the Oral arguments that getting a license would meet his needs. So Scalia wrote: Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement"), but while doing so, he utterly destroyed the anti-individual rights case on the Second Amendment.

In particular, he pointed out that Miller (the 1939 case most favored by gun grabbers) was an incredibly weak reed on which to hang decisions, since the Defendant wasn't represented in Supreme Court arguments. Further: "It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment." (Discussion starts on page 50.)

On language, on history, on logic, he was thorough, and brutal. On the losers attempts to mangle the meaning of the phrase "keep and bear arms", (supported by some political drivel submitted by a few left wing linguists) he wrote: "A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics)." And "It would be rather like saying 'He filled and kicked the bucket' to mean 'He filled the bucket and died.' Grotesque."

On "incorporation" (the magical way that the 14th Amendment has been used to "apply" the Bill of Rights to the States), Scalia said the following
23With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894)[that's a mistake, it was 1939, as he correctly noted on the next page], reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
Since the Supreme Court only started incorporating the First Amendment in the 1920's, and Miller wasn't a contested case, this is a pretty strong hint that anyone who tries to use Cruikshank to protect State or City gun bans (like, oh, Chicago's) from the Second Amendment is going to have hard sailing.

In short, I think Heller was a major civil rights victory. But there will be many more fights along the way.

Political effects: Unfortunately, I think this decision was a big campaign ad for John McCain (pardon me while I gag). There's a lot of swing voters who are gun rights fans (especially in Michigan, PA, and Ohio, two states Obama has to hold, and one he'd really like to win). No Justice that Obama will appoint will favor gun rights, and gun rights won by only 1 vote. And there's always a chance that weasel Kennedy will "go wobbly". McCain would have to be even stupider than I think he is to pass on this opportunity.

(Actually, it was probably only a "medium" sized campaign ad for McCain. The gun grabbers winning would have been an even bigger ad for McCain.)
(Leave a comment)

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Don't like high gas prices? Blame Congress

Jerks in Congress are at it again:

House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to More Oil Exploration

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

WASHINGTON — A House subcommittee on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.

With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 mark for the rest of the summer, Republicans have ratcheted up their efforts to open up oil exploration along U.S. coastline. But the long-sought change has so far been unsuccessful.

Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.
It's all about supply and demand. You drive down supply, the price goes up.

Are you happy you're paying $4+ a gallon for gas? That food prices and other prices will be rising because it costs more to get them to you? Then thank Congress.

Do you not like it when Congress makes life more expensive for you? Then call your congressperson and tell him / her that we need more oil drilling, and they need to stop screwing up access to oil shale.
(2 comments | Leave a comment)

Monday, June 9th, 2008

In praise of CO2

A report on "Gloabl Warming"
Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.

GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere -- the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe's production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth -- the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe's biota was not even considered.

Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land's output and soon did -- on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass -- almost 110 million square kilometres -- enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings colonized a verdant Greenland. Greenland lost its colonies and its farmland during the Little Ice Age that followed, and only recently started to become green again.

This blossoming Earth could now be in jeopardy, for reasons both natural and man-made. According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed -- CO2 is released from oceans as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool -- will start to take the carbon dioxide back. With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green, especially in areas such as Canada's Boreal forests, which have been major beneficiaries of the increase in GPP and NPP.
Then there's this from NPR

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat


by Richard Harris
Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
Or, you know, it could mean that the main thing driving temperatures on the Earth is that big ball of light in the sky. The one showing damn few sunspots. This, by the way, is a bad thing. (See here: Note: In the graph above, the low flatline from 1645-1715 is the Maunder Minimum, a period of virtually no sunspots, where the historical reports from the northern hemisphere tell a story of dramatic climate change: harsh winters, cool summers, crop failures, famine and disease.)

How good is your cold weather gear?
(Leave a comment)

Rockefeller lied, chumps duped

The Washington Post has an article on the Rockefeller Report:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.


By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

...

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."
Here's your vocabulary lesson for the day: if you unknowingly say something false, you are wrong, but you're not lying.

If you want to trash the CIA, and say they need a complete overhaul: I'm with you.

But if you want to claim that "Bush lied", they you are either willfully deluding yourself, or you are the liar.
(Leave a comment)

Do you care about Gays? The Press doesn't

During the recent arguments over the CASC's rewriting of the CA Constitution to create a "right" to Same Sex Marriage, [info]zhaneel69 wrote: "And if the people voted for allowing Murder in the cases of blacks or gays, that would be okay?" I found this specious strawman rather amusing, given that I'm pretty sure she's currently allied with people who actually do, in countries they control, having laws requiring the murder of Gays, and do beat up and murder gays even when the law isn't on their side.

And the US press ignores it, because they're allied with those murderers, too.
At a fashion show to promote tolerance of gay people on April 30, a national holiday in Holland, celebrating the birthday of the late Queen Juliana, a group of ten Muslim youths dragged gay model Mike Du Pree down from the catwalk, beating him up and breaking his nose. A second model who tried to help out was also attacked.

I could find no reference to this beating on any of the gay news web-sites I checked, including 365gay.com, the Advocate, the Washington Blade as well as sites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). (I did searches on each of these sites for “Amsterdam.”)
In a later posting he reports
Within thirty-six hours of my posting on the April gay bashing in Amsterdam, a variety of websites, conservative, libertarian and gay, picked up on the story, including the blog of a leading Australian newspaper and the website of (the self-proclaimed) “largest gay news service” in Europe. That latter used language identical to that in the translations we provided, suggesting our post was their source.

We believe we were the first English-language source to cover this.

The publication (in the original sense of the term, “making public) of this story shows how powerful and necessary the blogosphere has become. Had I not met a Evelyn Markus, a Dutch Jewish lesbian, last weekend at the Santa Barbara Retreat of the Horowitz Freedom Center, few in the English-speaking world would have known about this event, yet another in a series of attacks on gay people in the Dutch capital.
How, you say, am I "allied" with these people? Well, who do you want to win in Iraq? President Bush? Or the Islamic Fascists? What's more important to you: your hatred of Bush, or your love of Gays?

For that matter, Iran executes gays. In the confrontation between the US and Iran, whose side are you on?
(Leave a comment)

Rasmussen Reports: Only 17% of voters are complete idiots

Interesting poll results:
Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.


Nice to see that 68% of voters are capable of mastering the obvious.
(Leave a comment)

Why voter ID laws are a good idea

There's only one real reason to oppose laws requiring voters have ID: because you favor vote fraud. The following article shows why, and also shows why easy absentee voting is an equally bad idea

Dead Voters Still Showing Up on Election Records, Puzzling Officials


by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
By Eric Shawn

Jane Drury voted last year in an election in Stonington, Conn. The only problem is, she died eight years ago.

Her daughter Jane Gumpel thought someone must have goofed.

“I was surprised because this is not possible,” she said.

But it did happen. The town clerk’s record clearly shows Drury’s vote, marked by a horizontal line poll workers put next to her name. And it turns out, Drury isn’t the only voter to apparently cast a ballot from the grave.

The issue of dead voters showing up on ballot records continues to be a problem for election administrators across the country.

Journalism professor Marcel Dufresne, at the University of Connecticut, led a class investigation into dead voters and said his group of 11 students discovered 8,558 deceased people who were still registered on Connecticut’s voter rolls. They discovered more than 300 of them appeared somehow to have cast ballots after they died.

We have one person who appeared to have voted 17 times since he died,” Dufresne said.

Dufresne said there is no evidence of any election fraud, but the number of dead voters “shows the system is vulnerable and it shows that people who are clever and have a little cooperation in the town level, you could use this and get people to vote for people who died.”

Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is adamant that “actually no dead people voted.”
Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is a lying sake of shit. Did zombies rise from the dead and vote? No. Does she have any evidence that no living people have voted in the name of dead people? No, she doesn't. She can't. So the only thing her statement tells us is that she is dishonest, and not qualifed to have the job of supervising elections.
(1 comment | Leave a comment)

Friday, May 16th, 2008

This is insane

Here's a fine example of why "hate speech" laws are a hideously bad idea:

Dutch cartoonist arrested for 'insulting people'

Cartoonist known for mocking Muslims, leftists has received death threats

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday.

The cartoonist, who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of violating hate speech laws and held overnight before being released, a spokeswoman for his publisher Uitgeverij Xtra said.

"He was arrested with a great show of force, by around 10 policemen," the spokeswoman said.

She asked that her name not be used, and declined to give Nekschot's real name, because the cartoonist and publisher have both received death threats.

Nekschot is known primarily for cartoons mocking Muslims and leftists, though the spokeswoman said he is a satirist who targets "any strong ideology."

Amsterdam public prosecutor spokeswoman Sanne van Meteren said Nekschot remains a suspect in a criminal investigation.

"We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate," she said.

Each is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison under Dutch hate speech laws — or two years for multiple offenses.

...

One recent cartoon on his Web site caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who met at an anti-gay rally and now wished to marry.
Three cheers for the First Amendment.
(6 comments | Leave a comment)

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

Now everybody's screwed

First: The Republicans.

There have been three "special elections" for US House of Representatives seats, seats that were all held by Republicans, in solid Republican districts. The third one was Tuesday.

In all three, the Republican candidate got his ass kicked. The GOP has various excuses, but they're just that, excuses. The Republicans as not getting their voters to come out and vote for them. This is bad news for them in November.


Now: The Democrats.

Obama got his ass kicked Tuesday (Clinton 67%, Obama 26%). While racist black Democrats support him solidly (93% - 6% in North Carolina), racist white Democrats don't (Clinton won whites without a college degree in West VA 75% - 20%). It's so bad that only 53% of West VA Democrat Primary voters would support Obama against McCain.


So, the Democrats can eaither go with the candidate who can't win white votes (he hasn't won a majority of the white vote in a Democrat Primary since Wisconsin), or the "super delegates" can steal the nomination and give it to the one candidate who might fire up the Republican Base for the 2008 election, and who will definitely depress the Democrat base.


It's going to be an interesting election year.
(6 comments | Leave a comment)

Sunday, May 11th, 2008

OMG this is funny

It may not be funny for those of you who like Hillary, I don't know. For anyone else, it should be laugh out loud hysterical.

Don't watch at work.



This has the same movie clip, w/ different subtitles. Even more obscene, but not at all political.
(1 comment | Leave a comment)

Thursday, May 1st, 2008

How the Democrats screwed themselves

Someday I'd like to have a nice, friendly chat with the people who came up with the Democrat Party's current method of selecting a nominee. I'd have one question: "WTF were you thinking?"

Let's see if I have the logic straight here: concerned that the Democrat Primary voters might "fall in love" with the "wrong" candidate, the designers arranged it so that the voters only got to pick 80% of the voting delegates to the convention. The other 20% would be "super delegates", "party elders" who would have "the best interests of the part" at heart, and so how could step in in a close race and "save the Party from itself" (which is to say, from those idiot voters).

And yes, that last little aside is fair. Because the only reason to set things up this way is if you want the option of those super delegates overriding the choice of the voters. If you trust the voters to make the right decision, or if you're at least willing to let the voters decide, then you give them 100% of the votes, not 80%.

So, for just a moment, let's look at this decision from an entirely practical, but abstract, perspective (i.e. not in the context of the current campaign):

You've got a tightly contested race, that's going down to the convention. Neither candidate is able to win 62.5% of the available delegates (62.5% * .8 = 50%). One candidate is in the lead, but the Party Establishment thinks (s)he's too radical, and "can't win" in the general election. So the Party Establishment (in the form of the "super delegates") decides to pick "the best candidate", and awards the nomination to the candidate who came in 2nd place with the voters. (IOW, the super delegates "do the job for which they were created".)

Now, imagine the response of the voters to this action. Especially, imagine the response of the primary voters who just got a big "f*ck you" from the Party Establishment. (Which, BTW, does not just mean the people who voted for the candidate who was denied the nomination. Every voter from the primary has just been told "your vote doesn't matter.")

How many of those people are going to go out and work for that candidate in the general election? How many of them are going to riot at the convention (see "Days of Rage", Chicago, 1968)?

WTF were they thinking?


Now, let's consider how this has actually turned out. The Clinton campaign has known for over a month that there was no way they could catch up with Obama in the delegate tallies. If there were no super delegates, if all the delegates were chosen by the voters, then the campaign would have been over before the PA primary. Specifically, it would have been over before the whole Rev Wright thing blew up in Obama's face. Before the whole "bitter people clinging to their guns and their religion" thing had blown up in Obama's face.

Stories that were pushed not by the Republicans, but by the Clinton campaign and its allies. Stories that would not have gotten anything like the same coverage if the Democrat Primary race was over, and Obama was the presumptive Democrat Party nominee.

So, w/o the "super delegates", you have an end of the campaign in early March, and 6 months to prepare for the general election.

With the "super delegates", you have another 5 months of bitter intra-party fighting, and a nasty fight at the convention that won't leave anybody happy.

Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
(1 comment | Leave a comment)

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

The opiate of the elites

Lovely article in today's New York Times. (Registration may be required. User "blogs", password "blogs".)

Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.

For the sake of concreteness, let’s define the people Mr. Obama had in mind as people whose family incomes are less than $60,000 (an amount that divides the electorate roughly in half), who do not have college degrees and who live in small towns or rural areas. For the sake of convenience, let’s call these people the small-town working class, though that term is inevitably imprecise. In 2004, they were about 18 percent of the population and about 16 percent of voters.

For purposes of comparison, consider the people who are their demographic opposites: people whose family incomes are $60,000 or more, who are college graduates and who live in cities or suburbs. These (again, conveniently labeled) cosmopolitan voters were about 11 percent of the population in 2004 and about 13 percent of voters. While admittedly crude, these definitions provide a systematic basis for assessing the accuracy of Mr. Obama’s view of contemporary class politics.

Small-town, working-class people are more likely than their cosmopolitan counterparts, not less, to say they trust the government to do what’s right. In the 2004 National Election Study conducted by the University of Michigan, 54 percent of these people said that the government in Washington can be trusted to do what is right most of the time or just about always. Only 38 percent of cosmopolitan people expressed a similar level of trust in the federal government.

Do small-town, working-class voters cast ballots on the basis of social issues? Yes, but less than other voters do. Among these voters, those who are anti-abortion were only 6 percentage points more likely than those who favor abortion rights to vote for President Bush in 2004. The corresponding difference for the rest of the electorate was 27 points, and for cosmopolitan voters it was a remarkable 58 points. Similarly, the votes cast by the cosmopolitan crowd in 2004 were much more likely to reflect voters’ positions on gun control and gay marriage.

Small-town, working-class voters were also less likely to connect religion and politics. Support for President Bush was only 5 percentage points higher among the 39 percent of small-town voters who said they attended religious services every week or almost every week than among those who seldom or never attended religious services. The corresponding difference among cosmopolitan voters (34 percent of whom said they attended religious services regularly) was 29 percentage points.

(2 comments | Leave a comment)

Monday, April 7th, 2008

What an idiot

The following is a rant. You have been warned. I am not ranting this way because the writer is attacking "my" candidate, because I don't have a candidate. I do, however, have a strong loathing for the kind of people who engage in the behavior discussed below. No one has the "right" to win. You have the right to try. But those who disagree with you also have the right to try. If you can't win "fair and square", then you deserve to lose, no matter how wonderful you are.

An idiot named Sean Wilentz has an article on Salon titled "Why Hillary Clinton should be winning", that takes this months "People Utterly Unclear on the Concept" Award. The sub head says it all
Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June.

I've got a news flash for you Sean: The Democrats chose to set up a non "winner-take-all primary system". Because of that, for the last year - year and a half the candidates have been competing based on the system in place, rather than the fantasy in your head.

If there had been a different system in place when the campaign started, the candidates would have done things differently.

Get the concept?

This is why you don't change the rules in the middle of the game (or after the players are done, and you're wrapping up the score keeping).

Or at least, why you don't if you're a decent human being, rather than a dishonest, sleazy, political hack committed to no principle other than "my side must win".

If you really think the rules are wrong, you are certainly free to say "hey, next time we should do things differently." But that is an entirely different thing from saying "my person is losing under the current rules. But if we change the rules in this particular way then my person would be winning, so we should change the rules that way right now."

That, you stinking pile of dung, is sleazy, poor loser bullshit.
(3 comments | Leave a comment)
Previous 20