Parity:

We're in favor of requiring women to notify their husbands if they plan to have an abortion, with the proviso that an additional law is enacted: All men must notify their wives if they've had an affair - to be enforced with a hefty fine and substantial jail time.

Seriously, though, the nomination of Alito is not good news for the country. Besides the legal aspect, the nominee is likely to trigger the "nuclear option", a clear violation of existing Senate rules.


posted by Quiddity at 10/31/2005 07:06:00 PM

From Krauthammer's lips to Myers ears (and Bush's too):

Krauthammer:

Miers: The Only Exit Strategy

We need an exit strategy ...

... a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.

... privileged documents from Miers's White House tenure.

there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives ... and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Myers:

... members of the Senate have indicted their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me.

... I have steadfastly maintained that the independence of the Executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position, especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.

Bush:

... I have reluctantly accepted Harriet Miers decision to withdraw her nomination ...

Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.

posted by Quiddity at 10/27/2005 07:11:00 AM

Broder says NO to reversing Bush's tax cuts:

In a you've-got-to-read-it-to-believe-it column, Will Anyone Pay the Bills?, the "Dean" of the Washington D.C. journalists, David Broder, complains about the fiscal damage done by Bush's tax cuts, yet prescribes a solution which is mostly cutting entitlements.

Here are the lowlights of his column. First, Bush's folly:

• [There are] risks in the chronic refusal of the Republicans who govern the country to pay the bills they are amassing here and overseas.
• [There have been serious complaints leveled at] the president and his allies on Capitol Hill for their seeming nonchalance in letting the debt of the federal government climb so rapidly on their watch.
• [T]here was a moment after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks when this President Bush might have found a bipartisan readiness among Americans to forgo further tax cuts in light of the new demands that suddenly confronted the nation.
• [Post 9-11] the president ... [continued] the course of tax-cutting on which he had embarked -- a pledge he has regularly reiterated, even though the wreckage of fiscal policy has now become clear ...
• The real challenge is how to repair the fiscal damage Bush has left in his wake.

Broder has just written (in the list above) that part of the problem was irresponsible tax cuts. So, what's the solution? Reversing the tax cuts? No. Here is Broder on solutions:

• ... a greater readiness on the part of Democrats to reexamine the entitlement spending ...
• Democrats ... must ... recognize the necessity of reforming the country's retirement system
• ... adapt the whole social insurance concept of the 1930s to the realities of a new millennium.
• ... individual savings for the predictable expenses of child-rearing, education and retirement ...

Comments:

Broder spends some words on subsequent tax cuts. Not to oppose them outright, but merely to tie them immediately with budget cuts ("pay-as-you-go for both tax cuts and spending programs"). However, his main focus is on stripping guaranteed entitlement benefits. One argument he makes, that the social insurance concept of the 1930s is obsolete, is completely wrong. The "realities of a new millenium" include: a smaller family network (if any) to help an individual in need and an offloading of traditional safety-nets like health care and pensions from corporations to the individual. If anything, the insurance concept of the 1930s is the starting point for an more integrated government/private-sector/individual program of economic security and health coverage.

And where it Broder's call for a repeal of Bush's 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax cuts? Or for those in the pipeline today? Broder is silent. He does, however seem to endorse "short-term tax increases", whatever that means (and why short-term if we've got a massive budget problem). Is Broder bying into the Republican line that the expiration of Bush's tax cuts constitute a tax increase? Sounds like it.

Finally, Broder has this to say aboud Democrats:

• "... the thinking branch of the opposition [is] centered these days in the Democratic Leadership Council and its allied organizations ..."
• Good words about the New America Foundation. Who are they? A mixed bag of Democrats and Republicans, but get this, on their webpage for Retirement Security, their two Featured Publications are from the National Review Online (!) - [1 and 2] written by Kevin Hassett of the AEI and Maya MacGuineas (Broder:"one who has worked with Republican moderates as often as with Democrats, ... particularly insistent that Democrats must ante up for any bipartisan solutions to become possible").

Ugh. That's Broder's idea of reasonableness: The DLC and the New America Foundation working to strip your guaranteed entitlements in order to prevent reversing Bush's tax cuts for the rich.


posted by Quiddity at 10/27/2005 03:59:00 AM

Technical problems:

Our PC is in trouble and acting up, thus the paucity of posts recently. Expectations are that everything will be fixed by the end of the week.


posted by Quiddity at 10/23/2005 09:13:00 PM

Ouch! That executive pay cut really hurt!

From the NYTimes:

Delphi Executives, Under Criticism From Workers, Agree to Salary Cuts

DETROIT, Oct. 17 - After a surge of criticism for increasing the pay of company executives while asking hourly employees to accept deep wage cuts, the chairman of Delphi said Monday that he and other managers were reducing their salaries.

The company's president, Rodney O'Neal, also said he would take a 20 percent reduction in his $1.15 million salary ...

80% * $1,150,000 = $920,000

How can anybody live on such a measly amount?


posted by Quiddity at 10/18/2005 07:52:00 AM

Visualizing Schwarzenegger's redistricting scheme:

Recently, there has been some detailed analysis of California's proposition 77, supported by Schwarzenegger, which takes congressional redistricting out of the hands of the Democratic-controlled legislature (see Ezra Klein, Brad Plummer, Matt Singer, Mark Kleiman). If the proposition passes, districts would have their boundaries set by a panel of judges. This is a typical good-government initiative that sounds reasonable.

Unfortunately, if a blue state like California does it while states like Texas and Florida continue with their red-friendly gerrymandered districts, at the national level the Democrats would suffer.

But let's set that aside for the moment. The proposition as it now stands has a bias in favor of Republicans. That's because the judges aren't completely free to set boundaries. There are guidelines that mandate "compactness," such as maximizing the number of whole cities in each district, and minimizing the number of multi-district cities.

Since Democrats tend to be concentrated in cities, this means compact districts will have a very high proportion of Democrats, leaving more slightly-Republican-favored districts in the suburbs and rural areas. It's a classic gerrymander hiding inside the compactness formula.

The mathematics for this can be complex, depending on non-linear curves plotting the ratio of Democrats to Republicans as one moves from population centers, and also on what's know in statistics as "bin size". But you can still get a sense of how it works with a simple graphical representation of how a neutral state (50/50) can, under a proposition like California's 77, end up with congressional districts that favor Republicans.

Start with a population of 24: 12 blues, 12 reds.
Congressional seats: 4
A city (at the left) which is 100% blue, and suburban/rural areas with a red:blue distribution of 2:1



In a fair (re)districting, one that has the congressional representation mirror the population's political orientation, we would have two blue seats and two red seats. A districting plan that would attain that goal might look something like this: (note the city at the left has multi-districts)



But if the priority is to create compact districts, along with the avoidance of multi-district cities, you could end up with a redistricting like this:



Instead of two blue and two red seats, we now have one (very solid) blue seat, and three red seats. So while Schwarzenegger's plan sounds reasonable, the devil is in the details, and it turns out to be not so fair after all.

UPDATE: It's possible that other guidelines in the proposition will work to the Democrats advantage, but on the whole, Republicans are the likely gainers. In any event, it doesn't seem to do much for competitiveness. And anyway, the fact that Schwarzenegger is beating the drum for it gives us pause. Since becoming governor, one of his top priorities has been to enfeeble the Democrats (e.g. through other initiatives like Proposition 75).


posted by Quiddity at 10/17/2005 06:48:00 PM

Mississippi-based family association doesn't want you to shop at Target:

From this story: (emp add)

Groups Threaten to Boycott American Girl

NEW YORK - American Girl, manufacturer of a highly popular line of dolls and children's books, has become the target of conservative activists threatening a boycott unless the toy maker cuts off contributions to a youth organization that supports abortion rights and acceptance of lesbians.

The Mississippi-based American Family Association, in a campaign launched Wednesday, is urging its members to demand that American Girl halt support for Girls Inc., which it called "a pro-abortion, pro-lesbian advocacy group."

What's the American Family Association concerned about? From their website:

Be Informed...

Target Continues Ban on Salvation Army, Adds Sex-Toy-Related Products

American Girl teams with pro-abortion, pro-lesbian group

Hey, that item about Target stores looks interesting. Let's see what the AFA has to say about it: (emp original)

Target Continues Ban on Salvation Army, Adds Sex-Toy-Related Products

This letter will be sent to Target:

Dear Chairman,

I am disappointed that your company continues to ban the Salvation Army from Target stores. I am also disappointed that Target has begun selling the 'Elexa by Trojan' line of sex products.

Because of these actions, I will be making a conscious effort to not shop at Target, especially during this Christmas season.

[Form for submitting letter to Target]

While Target contributes to homosexual groups, the company publicly states that they will not contribute to any religious groups. For Target, homosexual organizations are worthy of financial support, Christian and Jewish organizations are not.

Further showing their true colors, WTOP Radio Network in Washington, DC, reports that Target has begun stocking sex-toy-related products. "Formerly the domain of sex shops, such products have been brought out of the shadows by popular television shows like 'Sex and the City,'" WTOP reported.

Elexa by Trojan spokeswoman Cassandra Johnson says the products will be "discreetly packaged and sold in the feminine care aisle." Although not directly selling the "vibrator ring," Target is selling creams, gels, and stimulants associated with it. Click Here to see the product list website.

About that "vibrator ring". The Mississippi-based AFA needen't worry about it being sold at Target anytime soon (if ever). Here is a screenshot from the Elexa webpage for the item: (yellow highlight added)

The Vibrating ring is not available in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.

Thank goodnes for that!


posted by Quiddity at 10/14/2005 09:54:00 PM

Richard Weirdo Cohen:

• Let this leak go.
• the administration ... set out to impeach Wilson's credibility ... what Washington does day in and day out ... is rarely considered a crime.
• special prosecutors ... should always be avoided
• I pray Fitzgerald is not going to reach for an indictment
• I believe ... Miller is the martyr to a free press
• Apres Miller comes moi
• I want Fitzgerald to leave now

Cohen's column was the kind of thing you'd expect to read in the National Review. And what's with all the pro-Miller stuff? A martyr? Miller, he writes, "is sometimes accused of taking this nation to war in Iraq all by herself." Sometimes by her employer, the New York Times (which apologized for a number of Miller's bogus front-page stories about WMD in Iraq). And as to "official secrets, most of which are known to hairdressers, mistresses and dog walkers" - please, Mr. Cohen, tell us those secrets. All of them. Now.


posted by Quiddity at 10/13/2005 06:51:00 PM

U.S. Constitution - Article VI clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

George Bush:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation. "People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

posted by Quiddity at 10/12/2005 09:41:00 AM

Black is white. Up is down. Etc.

From the NYT, Liberal Hopes Ebb in Post-Storm Poverty Debate report about how post-Katrina policy: (emp add)

... even as he was calling for deep spending cuts last week, Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, who leads the conservative caucus, called tax reductions for the prosperous a key to fighting poverty.

How can you argue with that?


posted by Quiddity at 10/11/2005 08:10:00 AM

Who pushed the button on this one?

Bush was criticized for the initial offer of financial aid after last year's tsunami. Then he was criticized for a laggard response to hurricane Katrina. So you'd expect them to be on the ball for the next disaster. But no. We read (from the VOA): (emp add)

US Offers Aid and Sympathies after Asian Quake
By VOA News     09 October 2005

President Bush has offered Americans' deepest sympathies for the loss of life caused by the South Asian earthquake Saturday. In a statement, Mr. Bush said initial deployments of American aid are underway, and that the United States stands ready to provide more help as needed. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Ryan Crocker, has said Washington will provide 100-thousand dollars in emergency relief funds. He said the U.S. military has offered supplies and assistance to its Pakistani counterpart, and that a joint U.S.-Pakistani program (the Ministry of Interior Air Wing) will provide helicopters for the rescue effort. President Bush considers Pakistan's leader Pervez Musharraf a key ally in the U.S.-led war on terror. Pakistan was also one of many countries that offered assistance to help the United States deal with Hurricane Katrina.

Who decided on the amount of $100,000? This didn't go down well with the Pakistanis, who we're presumably counting on to help with the war on terror (or capturing Bin Laden or something). Was the $100K figure signed off by the State Department? Who made the call? Condi?

UPDATE: We remember distinctly hearing and reading about the initial $100K offer in a number of news outlets. Yet here is the New York Times with a totally different take: (emp add)

Showing Speed and Loyalty, Bush Mobilizes Aid to Pakistan
By DAVID E. SANGER     Published: October 10, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 - Eager to show it has learned from the slow responses to the Asia-Pacific tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, the White House announced Sunday evening that it would provide an "initial contribution" of $50 million for relief efforts in Pakistan.

On this story, who do you trust more, the Voice of America or the New York Times?


posted by Quiddity at 10/11/2005 07:47:00 AM

Neat drawing:

In Saturday's New York Times there was an Op-Ed, Evolution as a Zero-Sum Game. It covered the ususal territory. But what was of interest was an associated drawing. You can see the full size here. Look at it closely.

UPDATE: Wow! Sorry about that. Didn't mean to waste everybody's time. We only thought that the picture was interesting because some of the panels on the pulpit were neat - for those familiar with science.

• The atom at the top
• The Pythagorean theorem behind the scientist
• The heliocentric solar system
• Evolution
• Gravity (apple falling)
• The double helix on the staircase

There was no hidden secret image. Wish that there was.


posted by Quiddity at 10/07/2005 07:26:00 AM

The threat the United States is facing is ...

that Al Qaeda will take control of Iraq!

Or at least that's what Bush wants you to believe (transcript). Iraq is hardly governable and Bush expects us to believe that Bin Laden and his crew will control a spinning-out-of-control state.

We're back to Reason One for the war in Iraq: To stop the 9/11 terrorists.

From Bush's speech:

• "evil" mentioned 6 times
• "terror" (& variants) mentioned 31 times
• "kill" (& variants) mentioned 13 times
• "radical" (& variants) mentioned 23 times
• "Bin Laden" mentioned 5 times

That has nothing to do with the present Sunni/Shia/Kurd logjam. Who is buying this nonsense? Limbaugh was full of praise this morning for Bush's "leadership" but a caller to O'Reilly had had enough. She said that Bush misleads, we're stuck in Iraq, that it's a waste of time, money, and men. (O'Reilly noncommital except to bitch about liberals).

Bush:

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that expands from Spain to Indonesia."

This is unreal. Does Bush's speech reflect the opinion of anybody in the administration?

It's got to be PR. Got to be. Nobody can be that foolish.


posted by Quiddity at 10/06/2005 12:04:00 PM

Funny:

Last night on the Charlie Rose Show, there was a segment on Bush's recent selection of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Among the guests was Roger Pilon (Founder & Director at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies) and Lauence Tribe (Constitutional Law Professor, Harvard University). At one point in the discussion, Tribe was remarking that Bush has known Miers for a long time and presumably knows here thinking about legal issues and is therefore "satisfied" with her. To which, Pilon said:

"That the president is satisfied should give us pause, in my judgement."

From a conservative!


posted by Quiddity at 10/04/2005 09:28:00 AM

Loyal:

Having trouble figuring out why the undistinguished Miers was picked for the Supreme Court? Here's a possible scenario:

• Right now Bush is too weak and overwhelmed with problems to put in a divisive figure.
• Miers is on the old side. Out of 111 justices, only 18 were sixty or older when they first sat on the court. So the goal of putting on a long-termer (e.g. Thomas, Roberts) who will determine policy for decades is denied.
• Miers will get Senate approval without much fuss.
• Later on, perhaps two years from now, when Bush is in a stronger position, he'll want to exercise his power as President to shape the court in a more conservative fashion.
• He'll need a vacancy on the court.
• Miers, fiercely loyal to Bush, will resign.
• Bush picks a Thomas/Scalia clone.

posted by Quiddity at 10/03/2005 01:52:00 PM

What is this nonsense?

From WebMD we read: (emp add)

CDC Prioritizes Flu Shots Again

Sept. 14, 2005 - Federal health officials are once again putting high-risk groups first in line for flu vaccinations this fall, including some evacuees from Hurricane Katrina.

They cited uncertainty over vaccine supplies as the reason for the recommendation.
Vaccine manufacturer Sanofi-Pasteur is expected to generate some 60 million doses for the U.S. market, while GlaxoSmithKline is expected to provide 8 million doses of a newly approved vaccine.

An inhaled flu vaccine sold by MedImmune will be available to an estimated 3 million healthy child and nonelderly adult patients. This vaccine can be given at any time for vaccination of nonpregnant healthy people aged 5-49, including most health care personnel, other people in close contact with groups at high risk for influenza-related complications, and others desiring protection against influenza.

But it is Chiron Corp., the company behind last year's shortages, that remains the uncertainty for U.S. officials. FDA officials have said that they are encouraged by steps the company has taken to correct sanitation problems that led to last year's plant shutdown. Chiron Corp. projects production of 18 million to 26 million doses of the flu vaccine.

If all goes well, the company's production could drive U.S. supplies as high as 97 million doses.

Still, millions of the company's vaccine doses have not yet undergone sterility testing that will prove whether they are fit for the U.S. market. Officials say they are not yet counting on supplies from the company.

A flu vaccine shortage briefly became an issue during last year's presidential race. Bush admin was indifferent to the threat posed by a vaccine shortage (sound familiar?). Yet here we are again, with "millions of [Chiron]'s vaccine doses" untested. Why would you want to make testing vaccines from (what was) an unreliable source a top priority? Just like hurricanes and FEMA, "if all goes well", then who cares about doing the job competently?


posted by Quiddity at 10/03/2005 11:38:00 AM

Excellent:

Every so often Mark A. R. Kleiman tosses of a line that's really good and worth remembering. In a post about sexual harassment training (to prevent), he writes:

Libertarians have one good insight, which of course they borrowed from liberals: human beings are not to be trusted when they have power over other human beings. They're wrong, in my view, to imagine that the state is the sole, or even the primary, source of abusable power: the family, the school (public or private), the neighborhood, the church, and the workplace can all create power relationships that expose subordinates to exploitation, and sometimes the power of the state is the only, or at least the best, remedy for such problems, as the civil rights laws illustrate.

We'd also like to add that the free market is another place where power, not morality, dictates outcomes.


posted by Quiddity at 10/03/2005 10:38:00 AM

The latest Supreme Court nominee

is yet another depressing reminder that the United States reelected Bush in 2004. This blog has not been particularly exercized about the Roberts selection for the same reason.

Until there is real change through elections, or a massive loss of public and media support for Bush, it's not much fun tracking events.


posted by Quiddity at 10/03/2005 10:03:00 AM