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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

My television is jammed on some program where van Ssuteren is bleating on and on about that Holloway case. How long is she going to beat that horse? Its a goddamned stack of bones.

She's dead, Greta. Next fucking story. Jesus Christ.... I understaand riding a story for all its worth, but this ain't goddamned Watergate. Its not even Whitewater. I feel bad for the mother, but come on... no one gives a shit anymore, Greta.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not a bad idea. Although I betcha they could come up with a computer program that would create the districts with the shortest aggregate borders.

Have they solved the question of the shortest route to hit all 50 state capitals? Because the program would be easy but the processing power to perform it might not be there yet.

That said, you could be assured that the money spent lobbying now would be spent developing a program tht would maximize R or D districts with the minimum borders.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That said, you could be assured that the money spent lobbying now would be spent developing a program tht would maximize R or D districts with the minimum borders.

If you let anyone submit a program, both the Rs and Ds would have to worry that the other guy -- or Common Cause, or the Chamber of Commerce, or CalTech's computer science department -- would submit a plan with even shorter borders.

I'm telling you, Burger, what we need is more competition.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My television is jammed on some program where van Ssuteren is bleating on and on about that Holloway case.

This reminds me of a joke my five-year-old loves:

What time is it when an elephant sits on the fence? Time to get a new fence.

Buy yourself a new TV, sebby.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This reminds me of a joke my five-year-old loves:

What time is it when an elephant sits on the fence? Time to get a new fence.

Buy yourself a new TV, sebby.

This joke reminds me of a joke my four-year-old loves:

4yo: Knock-knock.
Me: Who's there?
4yo: Interrupting cow.
Me: Interrup-
4yo: Moo!

My two-year-old tells it differently:

2yo: Knock-knock, who's there, interrupting cow!
Me: Interrupting cow, who?
2yo: Moo!

That being said, I also think SD should get a new TV. But he's right about Greta and the Holloway case. Greta needs to let it go. They ain't gonna find the girl.

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Damnit, you're going to blow all your ccredibility with this one...

Sorry. I meant the cRip who killed big. he doesn't even get caught for 2 more years, but he does get pardoned at the 11th hour. My bad.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Instead of appointing a bunch of guys who are supposed to be beyond reproach to do this job, they should change the system entirely. Here's my scheme:

Anyone can submit a redistricting plan. Of all the plans that produce congressional districts within certain (mathematically defined) population limits, the one with the shortest aggregate borders is the one used for the next ten years.

If Schwarzenegger really wanted reform, this is what he'd do. The system cannot possibly be gamed to protect incumbents, and it is guaranteed to mix things up by producing entirely new districts every ten years.

So this will become an MIT/Stanford battle? I like it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you let anyone submit a program, both the Rs and Ds would have to worry that the other guy -- or Common Cause, or the Chamber of Commerce, or CalTech's computer science department -- would submit a plan with even shorter borders.

I'm telling you, Burger, what we need is more competition.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. Of course, you may end up with district lines running through a heck of a lot of neighborhoods. Overall, though, isn't this what Ohio is doing?

If you want competion, what about multi-member districts? (the Lani Guinier killer). Redistricting is much less important if all of the Bay area is a single district with whatever number of reps it's entitled to. Talk about market-based voting: Everybody gets the same number of votes (dollars) to allocate among their candidates. Top x vote getters go to Congress. Nothing in the constitution prevents this--just federal law, which requires each district to have a single member (which may be unconstitutional under the Tenth amendment).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Some months ago, I was talking to the guy outside the Ferry Building who was getting signatures for the Schwarzenegger folks, and after a few minutes I persuaded him that this was the better plan. If you know someone who would get behind, go nuts.

The main problem with the plan is that it has never been tried before. I would need to see it played out to know if it is realistic.

The other option is it doesn't take into account prexisting political boundaries. Voters seem to like districts that conform to their town and counties.

The one the Governator put on the ballot already exists in seven or eight states and has been shown to work much better than the legislative drawn lines. As I said before, Iowa has five congressional districts (none of which were ever competitive) and in the last election three out of five were competitive. The map the judges drew in 1990 in California created many competitive seats (twenty to thirty) and the legislative map drawn in 2000 here in California pretty much drew none (not a single seat out of 170 cong. state senate and assembly seats switched party hands in the last election).

The irony of the election of the Governators initiave in California was that all the political reform groups were looking to see if it could pass in california before they tried it in other states. Hastert, Delay, Pelosi and Waxman all came out against, as did every sitting congressman in California.

The irony is that even though the unions worked against it, this loss solidified the Republicans control on congress. In 94 there was a sea change in who controls the state legislatures and now the Republicans control the majority of state legilsatures. Before the Dems controlled most of the state legislatures, so they got to draw the congressional districts, insuring their control of the US congress. But in 94 that changed, and after the 2000 census the Republican state legislature got to redraw all the congressional districts (like in Texas) locking in their control.

The consensus now is that if it couldn't pass in California with the Star Power of the Governator behind it, it can't pass anywhere. So the reformers have given up, allowing the Repubs in Congress to rest easy.

Pelosi and the Unions, for short term political gain and to lock in her seat have sacrificed the Dems chances of ever taking control of the US House (I believe even if the Dems won every competitive congressional seat in 2006 they stil wouldn't control the US house of representatives - and the overwhelming majority of those competitive seats come from states where the judges draw the boundaries).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not saying it's a bad idea. Of course, you may end up with district lines running through a heck of a lot of neighborhoods. Overall, though, isn't this what Ohio is doing?

If you want competion, what about multi-member districts? (the Lani Guinier killer). Redistricting is much less important if all of the Bay area is a single district with whatever number of reps it's entitled to. Talk about market-based voting: Everybody gets the same number of votes (dollars) to allocate among their candidates. Top x vote getters go to Congress. Nothing in the constitution prevents this--just federal law, which requires each district to have a single member (which may be unconstitutional under the Tenth amendment).

They have already found a system that works. The judge system does work. In "theory" you can find problems with all sorts of systems, but the real test is practical results. The judge appointed has shown that it creates many more competitive districts. What has happened in California is that in California the Dems, since they get to draw the lines, put out spin discrediting the judge system. The spin that was put out was also financed in part by the congressional Republicans (Delay put in money to defeat this initiative).

So all the Democrat partisan hacks in this state bought the B.S. (including the ones on this board) and now feel that the judge system doesn't work and feel they have to come up with a new one. They believe that since the Governator was for it, it has to be bad.

If Ty's proposal was put on a ballot, the Dems in California (and again the congressional Repubs, Unions and NRA would back them) would find a way to discredit it, and then all the hacks again would think that it is a problem.

The bottom line was we had a proposal on the California ballot that improved the system (it may not have been perfect, but no solution is) and it got defeated. The political momentum was there but the forces of evil triumphed. Mainly because of all the Demcrat partisan idiots did not see they were beeing sold a bill of goods and bought the spin.

That sort of political momentum that could take on the Unions, both the Democratic Party and the entire California congressional delegation, and the Republican Congressional leadership will never come again. That was the one bite at the apple and the chance was lost.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The main problem with the plan is that it has never been tried before. I would need to see it played out to know if it is realistic.

The other option is it doesn't take into account prexisting political boundaries. Voters seem to like districts that conform to their town and counties.

The one the Governator put on the ballot already exists in seven or eight states and has been shown to work much better than the legislative drawn lines. As I said before, Iowa has five congressional districts (none of which were ever competitive) and in the last election three out of five were competitive. The map the judges drew in 1990 in California created many competitive seats (twenty to thirty) and the legislative map drawn in 2000 here in California pretty much drew none (not a single seat out of 170 cong. state senate and assembly seats switched party hands in the last election).

The irony of the election of the Governators initiave in California was that all the political reform groups were looking to see if it could pass in california before they tried it in other states. Hastert, Delay, Pelosi and Waxman all came out against, as did every sitting congressman in California.

The irony is that even though the unions worked against it, this loss solidified the Republicans control on congress. In 94 there was a sea change in who controls the state legislatures and now the Republicans control the majority of state legilsatures. Before the Dems controlled most of the state legislatures, so they got to draw the congressional districts, insuring their control of the US congress. But in 94 that changed, and after the 2000 census the Republican state legislature got to redraw all the congressional districts (like in Texas) locking in their control.

The consensus now is that if it couldn't pass in California with the Star Power of the Governator behind it, it can't pass anywhere. So the reformers have given up, allowing the Repubs in Congress to rest easy.

Pelosi and the Unions, for short term political gain and to lock in her seat have sacrificed the Dems chances of ever taking control of the US House (I believe even if the Dems won every competitive congressional seat in 2006 they stil wouldn't control the US house of representatives - and the overwhelming majority of those competitive seats come from states where the judges draw the boundaries).

Wow, things have really changed since I've been away. Spanky is blaming stuff on the unions.

(I would vote for a reform plan similar to Ahnold's proposal, provided it did not take effect until a similar plan passed in Texas.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
They have already found a system that works. The judge system does work. In "theory" you can find problems with all sorts of systems, but the real test is practical results. The judge appointed has shown that it creates many more competitive districts. What has happened in California is that in California the Dems, since they get to draw the lines, put out spin discrediting the judge system. The spin that was put out was also financed in part by the congressional Republicans (Delay put in money to defeat this initiative).

So all the Democrat partisan hacks in this state bought the B.S. (including the ones on this board) and now feel that the judge system doesn't work and feel they have to come up with a new one. They believe that since the Governator was for it, it has to be bad.

If Ty's proposal was put on a ballot, the Dems in California (and again the congressional Repubs, Unions and NRA would back them) would find a way to discredit it, and then all the hacks again would think that it is a problem.

The bottom line was we had a proposal on the California ballot that improved the system (it may not have been perfect, but no solution is) and it got defeated. The political momentum was there but the forces of evil triumphed. Mainly because of all the Demcrat partisan idiots did not see they were beeing sold a bill of goods and bought the spin.

That sort of political momentum that could take on the Unions, both the Democratic Party and the entire California congressional delegation, and the Republican Congressional leadership will never come again. That was the one bite at the apple and the chance was lost.

Seems to me that you don't really trust the democratic process to create the democratic process. There's some irony there, I think.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just can't get excited either way by the death penatly. Yes - it would definitely suck if innocent people are getting killed. But with DNA evidence now, I don't think that many innocent people are getting the needle (before anyone freaks out I have read all the stuff to the contrary) but I just don't buy it is bad as Sheck says it is.

In addition, I think it makes some sense that putting them out of their misery is actually a favor to them.

In any event, in my opinion, whether or not these monsters die or spend a lifetime in prison is not as important an issue as healthcare etc. There are many more important issues to get excited about.

I am of at least two minds on this.

I can't get too exercised about the execution of a former leader of a street gang convicted of four murders.

At the same time, I think we should abolish the death penalty nation-wide for at least two reasons:

(a) the systemic disparities in how it the death penalty is applied racially -- which are tied into economics and can't possibly be fixed except _maybe_ as society evolves in the very long term;

and

(b) there is absolutely no doubt that we convict innocent people from time to time, and that some of the people on death row did not actually commit those crimes. No serious person can doubt that we have executed and will continue to execute some innocent people.

In my mind, that is an abomination and far more serious that the problem of _not_executing guilty people.

I am also saddened by the whole thing, because it seems that Mr. Williams probably did really turn his life around in the 20+ years he was on death row, and was doing a lot of good for society. That doesn't cancel out the murders and the great evil he had done before. However, if one purpose of incarceration is to redeem and rehabilitate, we should recognize those results. Yet, I'm sure that the families of the four victims were not terribly impressed.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wow, things have really changed since I've been away. Spanky is blaming stuff on the unions.

(I would vote for a reform plan similar to Ahnold's proposal, provided it did not take effect until a similar plan passed in Texas.)

As the state of California has no control over what happens in Texas, you know that will never happen.

IF this proposition came up in Texas Nancy Pelosi, Tom Delay and the Unions would still want to defeat it. The Unions know that in competitive districts you get probusiness democrats. If it happened in Texas the only people that would support the reform would possibly be the Texas Democrat party (in California the state Republican party remained neutral and that was only because of major lobbying from the Governator) and the reformers.

The only way this system will change is through the proposition process. You will never get a constitutional amendment because an amendment would first have to go through congress and through the state legislatures, so that ain't going to happen. In addition, state legislatures aren't going to give away their power, so they are not going to change it in the individual states.

If it had passed in California it could have created a sea change across the country, but that was sacrificed for short term political gain.

What could be a greater sign that something is good when both Nancy Pelosi and Tom Delay want to defeat. And want to defeat it so badly they both raise large amounts of money to defeat it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
As the state of California has no control over what happens in Texas, you know that will never happen.

IF this proposition came up in Texas Nancy Pelosi, Tom Delay and the Unions would still want to defeat it. The Unions know that in competitive districts you get probusiness democrats. If it happened in Texas the only people that would support the reform would possibly be the Texas Democrat party (in California the state Republican party remained neutral and that was only because of major lobbying from the Governator) and the reformers.

The only way this system will change is through the proposition process. You will never get a constitutional amendment because an amendment would first have to go through congress and through the state legislatures, so that ain't going to happen. In addition, state legislatures aren't going to give away their power, so they are not going to change it in the individual states.

If it had passed in California it could have created a sea change across the country, but that was sacrificed for short term political gain.

What could be a greater sign that something is good when both Nancy Pelosi and Tom Delay want to defeat. And want to defeat it so badly they both raise large amounts of money to defeat it.

Unions? Texas? Huh?