Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/2338771

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
tu et une superb na-na!

Why, thank you, but -- for some reason, I equate "na-na" with "grandmother", and this is causing me all kinds of identity stress.

Besides that, I am in no way a "chick". As my wife will attest.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You'll note that my point of comparison was not the moral equivalency of the two men. It was the tone deafness of a person who would say that either "would have been" a great leader. A person who would say such a thing would necessarily be acting out of complete ignorance of how it sounds to the real stakeholders.

But hey, I'll gladly concede that killing people on the basis of race is worse than denying them human rights on the same basis.

I was having a crabby day of endless conference calls with idiot attorneys. I apologize.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/2338771

My god, it's all worth it just to read a fed court opinion containing the phrase "we decide only the legality of (the plan), not its wisdom . . ."

[bilmore]

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Federal spending was the topic and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich came prepared with a pie chart to argue his point about a bloated Pentagon budget.

But although many listened to Tuesday's presidential debate, few could see the Ohio congressman's prop.

The debate was broadcast only on National Public Radio.

As Kucinich challenged Democratic front-runner Howard Dean for refusing to acknowledge that the Pentagon budget needs to be cut, debate moderator Neal Conan of NPR interrupted.

"Congressman Kucinich is holding up a pie chart, which is not truly effective on radio," Conan told his listeners.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
My god, it's all worth it just to read a fed court opinion containing the phrase "we decide only the legality of (the plan), not its wisdom . . ."

Too bad the plan was legal, becuase I think that it is terribly unwise. Particularly this part:

"All the judges expressed alarm that computer-assisted redistricting between the decennial censuses was used to create a partisan shift in power.

"Higginbotham and Rosenthal [the majority] urged Congress to adopt a law to forbid redistricting more than once a decade.

"Higginbotham and Rosenthal also called on the U.S. Supreme Court in a currently pending case to give lower courts greater guidance in how to deal with "excessive partisan line drawing."

"'Perhaps the court will draw on its experience in developing federal common law in the antitrust area, which draws a fine line between competitive effect and injury to competition,' they said.

"They noted the power of the computer allowed Democrats in 1991 to draw a partisan gerrymander that thwarted Republicans much as this map hinders Democrats. They said the computer-drawn maps create the 'potential for abuse.'

"'We know it is rough and tumble politics, and we are ever mindful that the judiciary must call the fouls without participating in the game,' they said. 'We must nonetheless express concern that in the age of technology this is a very different game.' "

Only parties who have lost all respect for each other, and who have lost sight of the overall needs of the system and the country in pursuit of short-term gain for their politicians and their parties, would pursue such policies.

S_A_M

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by bilmore
My god, it's all worth it just to read a fed court opinion containing the phrase "we decide only the legality of (the plan), not its wisdom . . ."

What say the Texans about this?

[sgtclub]

Anybody catch the State of the State last night?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Watchtower
What say the Texans about this?

The Republican Texans? "Yay!"

The Democrat Texans? "Boo!"

I had not realized to what extent both sides have been willing to draw convoluted, results-driven districts until I saw the before-and-after maps on this case, and the comparable Colorado maps. There's got to be a better way. So, SAM, total agreement, in principle, but it's one of those cases where, if you disallow the new convoluted mess, you leave in place one that is just as bad, if not worse. The Dem's Texas map served to give some fairly unrepresentative results, and I think the new one, while still horribly skewed, probably ends up with a closer-to-the-popular-vote result in terms of Dems/Repubs elected.

But, like I said, both choices sucked.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anybody catch the State of the State last night?

I read the transcript, FWIW, and thought it was more impressive than what I expected him to deliver.

Nice line - if I can sell Red Sonja, I can sell California to the Feds.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I read the transcript, FWIW, and thought it was more impressive than what I expected him to deliver.

Nice line - if I can sell Red Sonja, I can sell California to the Feds.

I had the same take, although I suspect that AG will chime in with an "Arnold Lied" take shortly.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore But, like I said, both choices sucked.

I'm not sure why "computer assisted" redistricting that is taking a lot of heat for this. Legislatures came up with equally whacked gerrymanders by hand long ago, though I suppose the "computer generated" could lend some justification to what is otherwise outrageous.

One would think computerized redistricting would make coming up with actually rational districts easier (such as: including parameters that minimize the total length of district borders of the districts and keep population centers together). Though the idea of limiting redistricting to respond to a new census seems reasonable.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I'm not sure why "computer assisted" redistricting that is taking a lot of heat for this. Legislatures came up with equally whacked gerrymanders by hand long ago, though I suppose the "computer generated" could lend some justification to what is otherwise outrageous.

One would think computerized redistricting would make coming up with actually rational districts easier (such as: including parameters that minimize the total length of district borders of the districts and keep population centers together). Though the idea of limiting redistricting to respond to a new census seems reasonable.

Wouldn't computer assisted redsitricting performed to achieve political goals require coding that makes the "bad" weighting of certain factors obvious? Is that true in Texas?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I had not realized to what extent both sides have been willing to draw convoluted, results-driven districts until I saw the before-and-after maps on this case, and the comparable Colorado maps. There's got to be a better way. So, SAM, total agreement, in principle, but it's one of those cases where, if you disallow the new convoluted mess, you leave in place one that is just as bad, if not worse.

MY hope is that -- after both parties have been horribly skewered (perhaps after the S.Ct weighs in) -- more states will go to the use of a "non-partisan" or "non-political" redistricting body to set Congressional districts with an eye towards keeping communities and/or local governmental entities together. I believe that Iowa and one other state have such bodies now.

It is tough to get politicians to move past the "incumbent protection racket" and tough to get political parties to move past "screw the other side" -- but heck, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. managed to sign and implement some nuclear arms reductions treaties.

S_A_M

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I had the same take, although I suspect that AG will chime in with an "Arnold Lied" take shortly.

Well, how do you reconcile his campaign promises regarding the budget with what he'll actually have to do? Do you think AS just didn't know he'd have to cut programs?

S_A_M