The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you agree with the liberal press that bringing in industry to comment on proposed environmental rules is wrong?

How do you propose to 1) tighten environmental rules on US based manufacturers and then 2) keep manufacturing jobs at $20/hour from going to the 3rd world at 1$/hour.

Do you even believe any of your shit?

You're right, Hank, I omitted a step: the NAS will also be consolidated with the EPA before both are eliminated entirely.

The NAS (including its subsidiaries the NIH and the National Research Council) does not propose, promulgate or enforce any regulations (except their internal regulations regarding its employees and members).

I am sure there are projects underway at the NAS to help address both of your questions. Doubtless, however, the results of both studies will be ignored if they contain any hint of a governmental component. (NAS projects with a commercial impact tend to be eagerly anticipated by industry even as they are ignored by Congress, however. For example, the rise of talapia as a farmed fish is due in major part to a NAS study on how to improve production efficiency.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There was an interesting article I read recently--NY Times perhaps? Or The Week?--that challenged this well-accepted hypothesis. That is, the assumption is that by "rigging" districts, we get more polarized representation--either way left or way right. This study looked at, IIRC, presidential voting at a very small level. It turned out that over time, all neighborhoods became more partisan, one way or hte other. That is, whereas the R-D spread used to range from, say, -10 to +10 in the average area, it's now -25 to +25. In other words, it wouldn't really matter how you sensibly districted, you'd still end up with more liberal/conservative representatives.

Of course, you could do something like pie-wedges from a city, to capture the inner-city liberals and the suburban conservatives, but that's hardly sensible either--that just creates "balanced" districts that can go either way, but in either case hacks off 49% of the district, who then is not represented.

This is such B.S. When you have a large swath of independent voters (38 percent in California) and the election are decided in the primary they do not get any say. In a general election these independend swing voters will not go for extremeists, so when elections are actually competitive in the general election it has a strong moderating influence. That is why the centrists from both parties all come from the swing districts.

In addition, in the primary, especially a non=presidential congressional primary turnout is unbelieveably low (twenty percent). The lower the turnout the less likely moderate are to vote. Extremists always show up to vote, it is the moderating influences that turn out only in big elections.

In addition, in the primary a plurality of the votes can win (it works the same in the general election, but in reality there is just two competitive parties so there are only two candidates). With an open seat in a Republican primary you can get as many as ten candidates. The candidate with the most votes wins, no matter how little votes they get. In districts in California, in the Republican primary (with ten candiates and a twenty percent turnout) you get candidates winning with only fifteen thousand votes. The general election is a non event so you get a person with fifteen thousand votes representing 500,000 people.

Anybody who has spent fifteen minutes in retail politics knows that gerrymandering polarizes districts. Not because it is the conventional wisdom but because it is so painfully obvious a blind brain damaged orangutan could see it.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
True, but when I posted it was not yet 11:30 on a Friday evening before a long holiday weekend. Look for such an announcement on Dec. 23, to be published in the Summary of the Annals of the Congressional Quarterly Review of Various House Committees Regarding the Budget, probably on the last page written in mirror-image ancient Aramaic (the language of Jesus Christ).

I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about. Aramaic? What the hell is that? If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the children and legislators of America.

[Spanky]

By the way, moderate Republican and DLC democrats alway support redistricting reform no matter who controls the state because both these groups know they can only get control of districts were centrist voters have say.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Just like any true democrat would disband the military and nationalize all industry in America.

I don't think yor hyperbole is nearly as close to the actual Democratic platform as mine is to the Republican.

I'm just sayin'.

[notcasesensitive]

So if Ahnold denies Tookie's clemency request and he's put to death tonight, what are the odds of random violence/riots in LA this week? Less, do your bookies have the numbers on that one? TIA.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't think yor hyperbole is nearly as close to the actual Democratic platform as mine is to the Republican.

I'm just sayin'.

Can you find me a congressional Republican that has called for the elimination of the NIH?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
So if Ahnold denies Tookie's clemency request and he's put to death tonight, what are the odds of random violence/riots in LA this week? Less, do your bookies have the numbers on that one? TIA.

I found myself wondering about that as well.

Also, consider the possibility of targeted violence. Want to influence a clemency decision from the Terminator? Announce plans to go trash the lot at Universal.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky


Anybody who has spent fifteen minutes in retail politics knows that gerrymandering polarizes districts. Not because it is the conventional wisdom but because it is so painfully obvious a blind brain damaged orangutan could see it.

Here's the problem with your dismissiveness--you have to compare it to something to say it's more polarizing. What is that something? Geographically contiguous districts? Districts demarked by physical landmarks/obstacles (highways, rivers, county borders, etc.)?

You need a baseline. It's easy to say that gerrymandered districts are polarized. But you have to compare it to a baseline using some other approach that's not just "create areas that are 50% D and 50% R". Because you might have to gerrymander just as much to get those districts.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you find me a congressional Republican that has called for the elimination of the NIH?

Joe Barton isn't exactly a friend to researchers under federal grants. Especially if he doesn't agree with their conclusions.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you find me a congressional Republican that has called for the elimination of the NIH?

This was a much bigger issue in the 90s, but generally NAS funding has been regularly cut by Republican Congresses.

Off the top of my head from a 30 second Google search:

http://sciencedems.house.gov/randd/views_fy97.htm

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Here's the problem with your dismissiveness--you have to compare it to something to say it's more polarizing. What is that something? Geographically contiguous districts? Districts demarked by physical landmarks/obstacles (highways, rivers, county borders, etc.)?

You need a baseline. It's easy to say that a gerrymandered districts are polarized. But you have to compare it to a baseline using some other approach that's not just "create areas that are 50% D and 50% R". Because you might have to gerrymander just as much to get those districts.

When the judges do the districts they are told to follow the other political boundaries as much as possible: County lines and then city lines. I have never heard of a commission trying to get the parties even - that would be absurd and is not an option. In california in 1990, because the governor and the legislature could not agree on districts, the judges did the lines and followed those rules. The result was many conservative democrats and moderate republicans. In 1980 they had been gerrymandered so the 1990 redistricting made the california legislature more centrist and less partisan. In 2000, with the Dems controlling every branch of the government the districts were gerrymandered. On the congressional side five moderate Republicans lost their seats and one moderate Democrat lost their seat.

After the Gerrmander, in the primary the Chamber endorsed 90 candiates - 58 dems and 32 repubs. Only eight of the chamber endorsed candidates won. In other words all the prounions dems won, and all the repubs that were more concerend about abortion and guns that the business climate won. Before the gerrymander the chamber had a 78% success rate.

The state legislature is extremely partisan.

Right now with the current Gerrmander you have a congressional district in Southern california that is three hundred miles long and five miles wide.

Gerrymandered districts polarize legislative seats. I have seen it in action. It is a fact. When I look out my window and see dowtown Palo Alto, I know it is downtown Palo Alto. You can show me all the studies you want saying it isn't, but it is.

The study is absurd.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
This was a much bigger issue in the 90s, but generally NAS funding has been regularly cut by Republican Congresses.

Off the top of my head from a 30 second Google search:

http://sciencedems.house.gov/randd/views_fy97.htm

You and RT are classic. I did not ask about cutting of funds to science stuff. In your diatribe you said that Republicans wanted to eliminate the NIH.

I am just asking for one congressional Republican that has called for the elimination of the NIH.

Saying that the Republicans want to eliminate the NIH is just as absurd as saying the Democrats want to eliminate the military and nationalize all industry.

I am just saying.

[Spanky]

Doesn't the below poll demonstrate that anyone that said that the Iraqi population supports the insurgenst is wrong (TaxWonk). That anyone that thought that Iraq is a "quagmire" was wrong. And anyone that thought Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein was wrong.

And if the press is so unbiased towards the war why isn't this poll headlines of every paper in America.

?????????




ABC NEWS POLL. Iraqis Optimistic about their future.


Dec. 12, 2005 — Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. But views of the country's situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups — a study in contrasts between increasingly disaffected Sunni areas and vastly more positive Shiite and Kurdish provinces.

An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

Surprisingly, given the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.
Nonetheless, nationally, security is seen as the most pressing problem by far; 57 percent identify it as the country's top priority. Economic improvements are helping the public mood.

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

Life In Iraq: Percent Saying Good

In Your Life 70%
For Country 44%

There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country.

Interest in politics has soared.

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader.")

Whatever the current problems, 69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year — a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there. However, in a sign of the many challenges ahead, this optimism is far lower in Sunni Arab-dominated provinces, where just 35 percent are optimistic about the country's future.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
You're right, Hank, I omitted a step: the NAS will also be consolidated with the EPA before both are eliminated entirely.

The EPA was created by a Republican (Nixon)