Noted for future reference

"... exclusive access to 311 data gives incumbent politicians -- like, say, Michael Bloomberg -- a distinct advantage when it comes to getting reelected. For instance, when campaigning on a neighborhood level, the incumbent can look at the 311 data for each neighborhood and tailor their message appropriately, e.g. promising to help combat noise in a neighborhood with lots of noise complaints or fix the streets in a neighborhood with lots of calls about potholes."


via

I didn't think the President was going to sign the healthcare bill until the reconciliation package had passed

In retrospect it makes sense: It totally takes the wind out of Republican sails. But I bet you there were at least a couple of House members caught off guard as well.

Now I get it...

I always wondering why our congressional representatives are so obsessed with France.

If people in [EU headquarters] struggle to understand how troublesome Congress can be to an American administration, they should try this mental aid.

Congress is a bit like France: prickly, status-obsessed, ruthless in defending national interests and addicted to subsidies for special interests such as farmers or industrial champions.

Both are ambivalent about free trade: as the Copenhagen climate talks near, it is France and certain American senators who want to talk up “green tariffs” in case China and India duck binding limits on carbon. |The Atlantic Gap - Economist|

It's because they're so much alike!

How I came to love the bailout

The House Committee on Financial Services has posted links to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The entire document is 451 pages (pdf) but there's a six page summary as well.

Official Proliferation Post

During the debate, I was struck by both candidates' allegiance to the policy of non-proliferation. As we have discussed here and here, the policy is at best one of slowing proliferation, not stopping it.

I think it's ironic that McCain insists that the United States needs nuclear power to deal with the threat posed by global warming, yet would literally bomb Iran should they build a single nuclear power plant.

At one point in the debate, McCain smiled and I think he was tempted to burst into song.

Is the entire developing world supposed to keep burning carbon-rich fossil fuels while the United States and Europe move to cleaner technologies? Such a policy will not stop global warming.

I was also disappointed that neither candidate talked about the threat that climate change poses to our national security. I don't think that's too complex a talking point for a debate that spent a lot of time talking about tax policy.

Just say it, Byron

Do It, Nancy [Byron York]

When it comes to the bailout plans, from a Democratic perspective: If it is House Republicans who are the problem, who cares what they think? Isn't it a distinguishing characteristic of the House that the majority can pretty much do what it wants? It's the Senate where the minority can make lots of trouble and slow down the process. In the House, we have seen Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants steamroll over Republican objections time and again in all sorts of legislative matters. Before Pelosi, we saw a Republican majority do similar things. So if Pelosi wants the bailout to happen, and House Democrats are united behind her, why don't we have a bill? | corner |

Meaning what, exactly? Do you, Byron York, think that the revised Bush plan is a good one and that you want it passed, despite public sentiment and the resistance of your own party? Or do you, Byron York, think it's a bad idea, and politically unworkable, and just want to watch the Dems melt down?

Personally, I haven't been convinced that the bailout is necessary, despite my vanishing 401k. I kind of hope they can't agree on how to spend 700 billion dollars.

What about you, Bellman readers?

Hillary on the NCAA Men's Basketball Champions

"In a move that's sure to be seen as controversial, Hillary has contacted the NCAA Board of Directors to argue that Memphis is actually better qualified to be National Champion."

Political aesthetics

I sometimes think that liberal individualism is something like the intellectual and moral equivalent of the best modernist design — spare, elegant, functional — but hard to grasp or truly appreciate without a cultivated sense of style, without a little discerning maturity. National Greatness Conservatism is like a grotesque wood-paneled den stuffed with animal heads, mounted swords, garish carpets, and a giant roaring fire. Only the most vulgar tuck in next to that fire, light a fat cigar, and think they’ve really got it all figured out. But I’m afraid that’s pretty much the kind of thing you get at the Committee on Social Thought. If you declaim the importance of virtue loudly enough, you don’t have to actually think.

Wilkenson

Randy Newman hates your freedom

Favorite line: Newman refers to Clarence Thomas as the used-to-be-a-brother, and then says, "well, Pluto used to be a planet, too."

via Daring Fireball, who writes,

Randy Newman’s keynote-capping scathing anti-Bush administration song was quite a thing. I loved it, and it seemed like everyone around me in the press section was enjoying it thoroughly. But, quite obviously, for humorless Bush supporters, it must have been infuriating. The song is chock full of “I can’t believe he just said that” lines.

It’s certainly hard to imagine any other major corporation in the U.S. that would invite Randy Newman on stage to perform a song like that. ★

First against the wall (presumably to be shot)

From Ogged, we consider the quetion of who should be "first against the wall when the revolution comes." Ogged chooses John Yoo, and I admit that his reasons are sound ("... I genuinely hate him..."). Personally I find it difficult to hate over politics. Perhaps it's a weakness.

I guess I would go with Fred Phelps. What about you, dear readers?

Don't tase me bro

Speaking of important issues, the video of Andrew Meyer being arrested and tasered is certainly disturbing and the implications for free speech and citizen safety are appalling.

My personal view is that tasers are too dangerous to be used on non-violent subjects because tasers do, from time to time, kill perfectly healthy citizens and until Taser International can explain the exact mechanism of why people are killed (and how to prevent accidental deaths), the devices should not be used on non-violent citizens.

But the free speech issue is also quite troubling. A Vanderbilt student sums up my view when they state that the actions of the police interfere with the very nature of free expression and open debate that are hallmarks of the University system.

While neither exceeding his time allotment nor ignoring line protocol, both of which Meyer seems to have done, are appropriate or respectful actions at a lecture event, his transgressions clearly pale in comparison to those of the officers.

It is clear from the video that the police escalated the nature of the conflict by forcibly grabbing a non-physically threatening Meyer as they attempted to remove him from the auditorium. His resistance was completely understandable. By the time the officers used the stun gun on him, Meyer was pinned to the ground and clearly outmanned.

Meyer was arrested for resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, giving police a more palatable way to describe Tasering a student for over-questioning a senator.|Taser incident threatens campus culture - Inside Vandy|

None of these issues are new, they've just been brought center stage by the footage of Mr. Meyer screaming like a stuck pig while he's being shocked.

A recent comment from a police chief encapsulates the law enforcement view:

"It's simple. If you do what you're told and you comply, you won't be Tased."

-Richard Leighton, police chief in St. Johnsbury, Vt., where two men who were shocked with stun guns in a 2005 incident won a $10,000 settlement after claiming police used excessive force. |Mlive.com|(emphasis added)

While law enforcement obviously takes an authoritarian stance on issues of disobeying a police officer's orders, I think law enforcement needs to exercise more judgment and discretion in determining whether a protest is political and non-violent and police should refrain from interfering with lawful dissent.

"I'm interested in changing the policy so that Tasers are not used on non-violent people, particularly protesters taking a dignified stance. I see the points police make in using Tasers as an alternative to lethal force. But it seems like they're lowering the threshold so they can use [Tasers] for a wide variety of uses."

- Jonathan Crowell, who was shot with a Taser during a peaceful demonstration in Brattleboro, Vt. |Mlive.com|(emphasis added)

Did the Simpsons sell out?

Ben Adler is disappointed that the Simpsons movie isn't as liberal as the show used to be. I think that a) he's misremembering the show, and b) he's got an odd take on the movie. He doesn't provide a lot of examples to back up his contention that Simpsons have "sold out,"* and the ones he does provide don't hold a lot of water. Click past the jump (by which I mean, click "Read More") to see some spoileriffic rejoinders.



1. Lisa is no more of a busybody than she was in the show, and she gets a typically cool response from the shortsighted Springfieldians. Even the lady who owes her slams the door in her face. Typical yellow trash.

2. Despite this, Lisa nearly saves Springfield. If it weren't for Homer, the town would never have been en-domed.

3. Mr. Adler objects to the EPA chief being made the villain rather than, say, the Sec Def. But I don't think he'd mind if the movie had poked fun at a specific EPA chief (such as Christie Whitman). There is simply no reason to think that an EPA chief in a (Simpsons version of a) Governator administration would be an actual environmentalist. In fact, Cargil admits he's only in it for the power.

4. With regards to the plan to blow up Springfield, he writes:

Obviously it is meant to be hyperbolic. But the irony may be lost on the average viewer.

Um, aren't we talking about a Simpsons movie, here?

5. This is where we really disagree, however.

But don't expect to leave the theatre feeling that the film did something larger, something the show so often did in its heyday: using over the top comedy to tell the truth about the real world.

I know that feeling: I get it when watching the Daily Show, sometimes. But I almost never got that feeling from the Simpsons. It was mostly throwaway gags at anyone's expense. If anything, the pervasive social critique was, basically, that people are dumb, yo.

In closing, however, I will present my favorite political joke from the show:

KRUSTY [in the voting booth]: Well, Sideshow Bob did try to kill me... but I'm aching for that upper-class tax cut!

* In fairness, Mr. Adler didn't use the phrase "sell out" in the column. It's in the headline, but I don't know if he writes the headlines.

The nuclear option

Operation Ivy Nuclear Test, October 31, 1952 (NARA) by pingnews.

I'm not a big believer in vast corporate-media conspiracy theory, but how else can one explain why reporters seem to have such short memories?

A quick search of Google News reveals that absolutely no mainstream media outlets are bothering to point out the fact that--not very long ago--the same Republicans who've been using the filibuster all year were ready to change the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster. In fact, the only applicable Google News result mentioning "the nuclear option" is from Think Progress. At least they do a nice job of it, offering up the following quotes:

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “[Filibustering] is wrong. It’s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I’m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spokesman: “Senator McConnell always has and continues to fully support the use of what has become known as the ‘[nuclear]’ option in order to restore the norms and traditions of the Senate.”

It's incredibly frustrating!

One of these kids is doing his own thing

So I'm about to log onto (ugh) myspace, and I see this:



I got nothing to add.

(Except: Note that I did not create a "Joe Biden" tag, because hopefully, hopefully, we won't need one.)

You should really read this

This post at splodinvark. Read the post, but don't neglect the comments, which are excellent (I'm not talking about my own little throwaway quip). Take the quiz if you are still interested.

Our next President of the United States

I can't find it in print, but yesterday I think I heard Bill Richardson say that instead of having a seperate health-care system for veterans, he'd give veterans a "Hero Card" that woud allow them to get premium health care from any provider they wanted.

Seriously, this guy is going to be president.

Crazy moderates

By this point it's probably uncontroversial to say that Bush is the worst president in memory, and yet his approval rating is holding steady in the low thirties. Relatedly, pick the nuttiest wingnut proposition you like (e.g., 'Bush has been anointed by God to lead the West in a clash of civilizations against the Islamofascists') and you can bet that 15-20% of the electorate is going to agree with it.

Obviously, though, the right doesn't have a monopoly on crazy thinking. I love my lefty brothers and sisters, but some of us are a little bit irrational some of the time. Let me just point to aromatherapy and leave it at that.

But here's a more controversial claim that came to me in a dream about Cokie Roberts:

Resolved: Ten to fifteen percent of self-described moderates will believe the nuttiest proposition you pick so long as it is delivered in a carefully measured tone.

Discuss.