Bipartistupidity

Almost everyone's had to go to the car dealership and buy a new car. When you go, you go with a basic premise in mind; that both you and the salesman want you to walk out with a new car. Both of you want your situation to be different when you leave than when you came in. Starting from that premise, the negotiations are pretty easy. There about things like warranties, accessories, and price. When you leave with a new car you might say to yourself, " I paid a little bit more than I wanted too, but, I got an extended warranty and a new mp3 player installed. All in all, I'm happy with the deal." The salesman, after you walk out, might say to themselves, " You know, I didn't get them to spend as much as I wanted. However, my commission will still be nice, and, I got another sale so I'm closer to getting that ' Salesman of the Month' bonus. All in all, I'm happy with the deal." This is possible because both you and the salesman on the otherside of the table knew you would both benefit from getting you into that new car.

Now imagine that salesman doesn't want to sell you that car. Imagine he thinks that you'll just make the car dirty if you get it so he's determined to make sure none ever leave the lot. Negotiations are gonna go a little bit differently. You ask if you can have an extended warranty, NO. You ask if you pay above sticker price if you can have a new and better stereo, NO. If you can pay under sticker price and let them off the hook for the warranty, NO. After awhile your gonna get fed-up and say, " Forget you then! I'll just go and build my own car." Now how many of us know or could afford to build our own car? Probably not many. So, you have to go ask someone to build it for you. They say, " Sure, but I wanna use it 3 days a week." You need a car so you agree. You borrow money to buy the engine, but the person you borrow the money from says they don't like speeders, so their only gonna give you enough money to get an engine that tops out at 60 mph. You agree. You go to buy the spark plugs, but you can only afford the economy ones that don't fire well so it's always rough to start the car. Lastly you get the shell but you can only afford an ugly rusty one. So what have you got: An ugly piece of junk that's hard to start, won't go past 60 mph, and you only get to drive 4 days a week. Now there's an argument to be made that you should scrap the car, get your money back, and come back at the endeavour when you've got better means. There's also an argument to be made that at least with a car you'll be able to get around better, thereby increasing your possibility for getting the means you need to improve upon your crappy car. There are valid points on both sides. However, let's not forget the reason for this predicament, i.e, the salesman being completely unwilling to negotiate with you for a good car in the first place.

Democracy is based on one unchangeable principle: Nobody gets everything that they want. We are all free and equal because we are all equally disappointed in what we get from the bargaining table. But if you want a seat at that table, you have to be willing to lose a little bit. Does anybody think that if 10-20 House Republicans had come up to the Speaker and said that they would be willing to vote for Healthcare Bill as long as there was no Public Option, that the House would have one in their bill? Does anyone think that if 1-2 Senate Republicans had been willing to cast their votes in favor of the bill if their was Medical Malpractice caps, that the Democrats wouldn't now being telling their trial lawyer friends to please not be mad at what had to happen? You sacrifice some things you want in order to get others. You want good grades, your not gonna be able to party 24/7. You want a nice house and money to spend, your going to have to be at a job that for most people isn't greatly satisfying. You want a family, your days of doing what you want, when you want, are going to have to go out the window. The ability to sacrifice some things in order to get other, more important things. There's a word for it: Adult. Let's hope that those in Congress who would rather say 'No' then ' Maybe' acquire this ability before the country turns into a slow crusty lemon that only works 4/7 of the time.

It's A Left vs. Right World - We Just Live In It

Full size image here

HCAN: Health Reform Chart under H.R.3200

From Health Care for America NOW!

Read more here

Make Up Your Mind

This picture from adamthinks.com is associated with an excellent post regarding taxes and the military. For those of you who hate snark, do not click the link. Oh, and get a sense of humor, dammit.

Taliban Cuts Off Fingers Of Voters

For the purpose of intimidation, the Taliban announced their plan for violence during the Afghanistan Presidential elections. They were not kidding.

From CNN:

Making good on a threat of election day violence, the Taliban sliced off the index fingers of at least two people in Kandahar province, according to a vote monitoring group.

After they cast their ballots, the fingers of Afghan voters are stained with ink to prevent them from voting multiple times. The fingers of the two women in Kandahar, a stronghold of the Taliban, were cut off because they voted, said Nader Naderi of the Free and Fair Election Foundation.

So, the next time Election Day comes around for you and all you can think of is the many excuses not to vote, think of this story. Think about these two brave women and the many more who voted knowing they were risking their lives. Then vote.

The Stimulus Is Working

From Fast Lane, the Department of Transportation blog:

Here's the scorecard:

•$22 billion--nearly half of DOT's stimulus money--made available to the States;
•Over 6,600 projects approved
•Over 3,200 projects underway right now

And the future promises even more boosts to economic activity:

•$8 billion in high-speed rail development
•$1.5 billion in TIGER discretionary grants

Sounds great to me. Let's remember, there was never a promise of immediate relief. The President never said that no one would ever lose their job ever again. The stimulus is about creating and sustaining jobs as well as rebuilding our national infrastructure and expanding green technology to have a more robust economy and a better national future. There is a long way to go, but we could not have started without the stimulus.

Ray LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation, says it more succinctly:

I know the stimulus can't make up for every job our economy has shed. But we have supported over 5,000 jobs already, with up to 500,000 more on the way once the full effect of this landmark program is felt in the transportation industry.

And every job we do create or preserve should be counted as a victory.

Progressive Quiz

The Center for American Progress has an interesting quiz to determine how progressive you may be. There are 40 questions and you answer them by responding on a scale of 1 to 10. Only takes about 10 minutes so give it a try. My score: 339.

Sac Bee:Citizenship Of Undocumented Immigrants To Be Challenged At The Polls

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that a conservative group wants to vote to make it harder for a child born in the United States to undocumented parents to have citizenship.

The initiative, which proponents tout as the California Taxpayer Protection Act, is aimed for the June 2010 statewide ballot.
For undocumented parents to obtain the new "Certificate of Live Birth with Foreign Parent," they would have to be photographed, fingerprinted and pay an additional $75 fee.
Beyond the birth certificates, the measure also would limit welfare payments for the children of undocumented immigrants, as well as require that any application for public benefits submitted by illegal immigrants be handed over to federal authorities.
[snip]
The initiative, according to the proponents' Web site, appears to be the first step to try to end citizenship rights for children of illegal immigrants.
That would bump up against the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that every child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen.
"Our citizen's movement will launch the national debate we need to bring an END to 'birth tourism' and AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP in the United States of America," the site reads.
The initiative itself "does not say that," noted Dolz, who said that "personally we might feel one way or another."

I'm not sure how this is possible considering what the 14th Amendment states:

Amendment XIV: Civil rights
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems clear cut to me. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Open Left Calls Out Rep. Eric Massa

Chris Bowers at Open Left has a post about Democratic Congressman Eric Massa (NY-29) and his vote against the recent housing bill. Here is his statement on why he voted against it:

"I campaigned on a platform of standing as an independent voice and voting in the interests of my constituents, not a political party. Today I did just that because I didn't think the Housing bill delivered a proportionally fair amount of relief to the families of my district," said Congressman Massa moments after the vote. "With this in mind, I could not rationalize further deficit spending in the face of minimal assistance to the working families in our district. While there are a number of things that I did like in this bill, the projections in it demonstrated that it was largely targeted to States like California, Nevada and Florida where the housing crisis has hit the hardest, not Western New York. I support helping families refinance their adjustable rate mortgages to stay in their homes, but compared to many other states, Western New Yorkers would not benefit enough to warrant my vote."

Wow. That is an amazingly obnoxious and ignorant point of view. I have no problem with politicians who vote against their party leadership. If you genuinely feel that doing that helps your constituents and gives them what they need, so be it. As a matter of fact, Rep. Cao of Louisiana would have done well to go against his Republican leaders on the stimulus bill. However, Massa knows the bill would help his constituents. He voted against it because in his view, other districts get a better deal than his. He admits that these districts were hit harder and could use the help but that doesn't matter to Massa. This guy voted no because he feels his district is in need of more help than offered. Seriously.

Here is Chris's take:

Someone who thinks like this should not be in Congress. Members of the legislative branch should not only vote for legislation that disproportionately benefits their own districts. If you say that a piece of legislation will help people, but you oppose that piece of legislation because your corner of the country does not disproportionately benefit from it, then you have displayed not only an abusive relationship to members of your own district, but a rather shocking level of antipathy toward the residents of the other 434 congressional districts. Does Eric Massa actively dislike the people who live outside of his district? Given that he said that the housing bill will help them, but that he voted against it anyway, it is hard to conclude otherwise...It is more than a little hypocritical for someone who raised $386K from Act Blue, and $554K from PACs to be so willing to give people outside his district the middle finger. If even 5% of that money came from the NY-29, it would be a shock.

Great point. It will be interesting to see how well his future fundraising efforts go. In the meantime, Rep. Massa proves that hypocrites are not only on one side of the political aisle.

Democratic vs. Democrat

Nate Silver wrote a piece recently about Republicans' use of the term "Democrat Party" instead of the appropriate term "Democratic Party". It's a great post with video of former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer whining about current Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, it has a chart explaining the media usage of the two variations, and a very succinct analysis regarding the supposed purpose.

The intent seems to be twofold: First, it seems to be an attempt at branding/labeling/controlling the way language sounds in an audience’s ears. Democrat apparently sounds "worse" than Democratic, and it's also an attempt to separate the Democratic Party from small-d democratic, a popular American concept. If such a tactic nets votes, it’s objectively justifiable. Second, it’s designed to get under the skins of Democrats. From a Republican perspective, both seem to be independently important reasons to standardize the epithet. As to the first goal, it’s unclear whether this could work, or whether, if it did, there would be any meaningful result that would ostensibly help further Republican fortunes at the ballot box. I’m open to hearing what this might be.

[snip]

As for the second goal, the non-tactical, end-in-itself enjoyment of antagonizing Democrats, to use Fleischer’s term, is pure, uncut childishness. Moreover, it’s just boring. Newsflash – human beings have figured out a lot of ways to antagonize other human beings with pejoratives. It’s like Palin-as-hockey agitator, no great skill involved (and of course "Democrat Party" is a Palin staple). It’s literally the most basic childhood taunt – taking someone’s real name, and calling them something else to provoke a reaction. It's the single-celled amoeba of verbal harassment. It’s unmistakable that much of the term’s use involves an attempt at agitation. Again, objectively, there’s nothing wrong with Republicans methodically doing this – refusing the basic respect of allowing the Democratic Party its own name. They can elect their own behavior all they want; it’s a free country. Democrats may choose a reflexive reaction, but nobody "makes" you react, you have responsibility for how you react.


Great analysis. Seriously, I could not figure it out myself. I just didn't understand what the point was; couldn't wrap my mind around it. However, it is Nate's personal feelings regarding this subject that I want to highlight because it articulates exactly how I feel about it.

On the flip side of the coin, denying another person or group basic respect means that once the epithet escapes a Republican’s lips, he or she can’t complain when no respect is returned. Some Democrats aren’t bothered. Their perspective is that the very nature of such a tiny, repetitive jab, like a sibling flicking you on the shoulder, is that it pales in comparison with the constellation of behaviors that create actual wounds. However, some Democrats find it to be a threshold issue in a conversation. It's irrelevant whether it wounds; it's a communication signal. If your behavior choice is a playground tactic, why should my behavior choice be to listen to what you say in whatever else is coming out of your mouth? You won’t agree to my name. I am supposed to take anything you say seriously? Couples therapists know a thing or two about this one. Respect is a threshold condition for listening. If Republicans genuinely want Democrats to listen to their policy ideas, they shouldn't use the term because it's counterproductive. For example, when I hear the term, nothing else matters that comes out of that person's mouth. That Republican has failed the threshold bad faith test, and who cares what they say?

Exactly.

Rev. Robinson's Prayer Not Broadcast On HBO

Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal Bishop, delivered a moving prayer today at the request of President-elect Barack Obama to kick off the inaugural festivities in Washington D.C. this afternoon. Unfortunately, HBO did not broadcast his invocation. Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend talks about it here. I also read about it at Queers United and AmericaBlog. Which means this is going to get around very fast. If I were in charge at HBO, I wouldn't expect huge ratings on Tuesday for the inauguration (unless, of course, they also don't broadcast homophobe Rev. Rick Warren's invocation). People don't respond well to being ignored.

Here is a transcript of the Rev. Robinson's prayer:


A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire

Opening Inaugural Event Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC January 18, 2009

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God's blessing upon our nation and our next president.
O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will...

Bless us with tears - for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.
Bless us with anger - at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort - at the easy, simplistic "answers" we've preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience - and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be "fixed" anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility - open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance - replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.
Bless us with compassion and generosity - remembering that every religion's God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.
And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln's reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy's ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King's dream of a nation for ALL the people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.
Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.
Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters' childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we're asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand - that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

Letter From A Liberal: Be A Freakin' Liberal

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman has written a long and detailed letter to the President-elect ( 4 days to go) on what he, in Krugman's expert opinion, should do to fix our current financial crisis, repair the institutions that allowed it to happen in the first place, and implement policies to keep it from happening again. He touches on public works programs, banking policies, and the absolute need for, if not Universal, then Universally Accessible Healthcare. It will be in the January 22, 2009 edition of Rolling Stone. His basic theme: If they're not calling you a Marxist, then you're doing something wrong!

Politico: Openly Gay Rev. Gene Robinson To Deliver Invocation At An Inauguration Event

From Mike Allen at Politico:

BREAKING: The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who became the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop in 2003 and last year entered into a civil union with his gay partner, will deliver the invocation for Sunday’s kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, with President-elect Obama in attendance. The event is free and open to the public. An Obama source: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism – but it’s just not so.” Robinson has been referred to as “the most controversial Christian in the world.” A Sewanee graduate!

This is wonderful news! I don't necessarily believe it was planned this way before the Rick Warren fiasco. I think this is a response to the outrage. Which makes me believe the President-elect's claim that he does read his negative press (unlike President Bush). Excellent!

I wonder what Warren will say about this? Something offensive, I'm sure.

The 17th Amendment

From ConstitutionFacts.com

Amendment XVII: Direct election of senatorsThe Seventeenth Amendment was proposed on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointment: until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

So, the Governor of the state could make a temporary appointment once a special election date has been determined, right? The appointed Senator would know that it was temporary, still participate in senatorial duties and decide whether or not to officially run for the seat. Am I missing something here? Why don't we do it this way anymore? Can the Senate say they will do it this way to avoid all of the drama? Because in my world, following the Constitution is pretty much drama free. And right now, that sounds pretty good.

What I Have Learned This Week

A lot of talk out there in the internet tubes about the slamming Joe Scarborough received from Zbigniew Brzezinski on "Morning Joe". It's nice to hear that there are people who are not afraid to be completely honest about his "stunningly superficial knowledge". However, while Joe tried to recuperate, Mr. Brzezinski mentioned the Taba Summit. I had never heard of this before. I know about it now. Thank you, sir.

New Mexico Rail Runner now runs from Santa Fe: The Central New Mexico corridor, which is home to half the state’s population, contains Santa Fe, the state capital, and Albuquerque, the largest city and economic hub of New Mexico. The two cities are connected by a single four-lane interstate highway, I-25...The high real-estate prices in Santa Fe mean that many of the people who work there must commute from the Albuquerque metro area. Furthermore, the capital is home to many of the state’s cultural institutions and tourist attractions, and most out-of-state visitors are forced to make the 60-mile journey from the Albuquerque International Sunport by car. As the population of the region grows, commute times are expected to increase 80% on some routes by 2025, making the introduction of additional forms of transportation a priority to local governments.[7]

Roland Burris, Blagojevich's appointee for Obama's Senate seat, has a mausoleum. It's actually quite nice. It's bigger than my kitchen. And really, really weird.

Charles Barkley feels that speeding is understandable if the possibility of sex is the reason. Alabama's future Governor, everyone!

Colorado Governor Picks Senate Replacement

The Denver Post is reporting that Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has selected a replacement for Senator Ken Salazar:

Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet has been chosen to fill the U.S. Senate seat, sources close to the process confimed (sic) this morning.
Bennet would fill the seat after the confirmation of Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary.
Gov. Bill Ritter is expected to formally introduce Bennet as his choice on Saturday.

Compare this to the fiasco in Illinois and the media circus in New York. Colorado knows how to do it.

Apparently, It's A Very Big Bus

Alphacat: Obama Whatever I Like Video

Big Bang Theory Finally Hitting Home

The Big Bang Theory is simple. The Universe started as one, separated into many, and eventually will become one again. It took awhile but this theory is finally starting to be recognized as not just a theory, but a fact of nature for both the Universe and it's inhabitants. As a Star Trek fan, a world, not just a country, of the people, by the people, and for the people, has seemed as natural to me as breathing. Alas, the world will, once again, have to catch up to me.

Funny Or Die: Prop 8 - The Musical

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die