Impolite Company

Majority Doesn't Care About Minorities on High Court

The LA Times has an article out today that discusses the results of a recent Gallup poll that shows that a majority of Americans don't care if there is minority representation on the Supreme Court, Americans Not Concerned With Diversity On Supreme Court, Poll Says:

There is but one woman on the nine-member Supreme Court, in a nation where women outnumber men at polling places; one black justice, in a nation that shed legalized racial discrimination only decades ago; and there never has been a Hispanic on the high court, in a nation whose fastest growing minority population is Latino.

Yet, with President Obama weighing his first appointment for the high court and promising to pick a nominee with "diversity of experience," Americans apparently are in no rush to even the score for women or minorities on the court.

The article goes on to discuss opinion on whether we need more women on the court in more detail than the minority question and the results on that question are lower than results in a poll taken soon after Justice O'Connor stepped down from the court. 

It shouldn't be surprising that a majority of people don't think it's that important to represent minorities on the court--you know, they're the minority and they usually get the short end.  The only interesting point I thought the article made was:

Women are more likely than men to call it important that the president nominate a woman for the court. Yet just 38% of the women surveyed by Gallup this month called it essential or a good idea. Among men surveyed, only 24% called it essential or a good idea.

But they didn't dig down into the numbers with minority groups in a similar fashion.  I would be very interested to know what percentage of African Americans and Hispanics think it's essential to have a voice on the Court compared to the overall national numbers.  Somehow, I bet it's a little bit higher than the roughly 26% and 32% discussed in this article.  Further research didn't show any articles addressing a greater breakdown of the numbers--I'll keep an eye out for Nate Silver addressing this.

Rep. Joe Barton: More Brilliance

Just ran across a quote from Joe Barton, one of the Texas delegation in the US House who is the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Grist quotes Barton from an interview that appeared in Newsmax, regarding his fears that the EPA could regulate marathon runners under its authority to regulate sources of CO2, Barton Worries that EPA Will Regulate Runners:

Barton says the average healthy adult exhales between four-tenths of a ton and seven-tenths of a ton of CO2 a year.

“So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,” Barton says. “The key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not.”

What the hell?  This is what he thinks is going to break the back of efforts to regulate carbon dioxide?  Stoking fears that marathon racers will be regulated?  Maybe a more effective route would be to claim that any mass gathering of people could be considered a single source, like the Super Bowl or the Final Four.  Marathoners are a rather small slice of the American population to make much of a difference but if you could convince football fans that they were somehow threatened by the EPA, that could change things in a big way!

Brewster McCracken Bows Out

Good for Brewster--by dropping out of the runoff (he was 20-points behind in the general election), McCracken has saved the city a bunch of money and allowed us to get ready to move on into the new administration sooner rather than dragging things out (Here that, Norm Coleman???).  Lee Leffingwell will be the new mayor of Austin and will be sworn in on June 22nd.

The Lege in Your Exam Room

Sen. Dan Patrick gets a fair amount of copy written about his abortion grandstanding every session and this year is no exception.  I've already posted about him or his legislation a number of times and this probably won't be the last word you get from me on the topic.  The Chronicle has a good update on an amendment he made to his original bill (which would have required a doctor to show a woman seeking an abortion the results of a mandatory ultrasound--he made the ultrasound voluntary in his amendment) and the monkey business related thereto.  Seems that the good talk show host senator didn't seem to want to go into the details, like how the new bill might require doctors to describe the stages of fetal development before a woman could get an abortion, Trust Me, I'm a Senator:

...Austin Dem Sen. Kirk Watson noted that the measure was not drafted with the input of any medical professionals – including from the Texas Medical Association, which opposes the measure. And Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Ft. Worth, wasn't at all impressed with Patrick's feel-good assurance that the measure is really just about helping women make best decisions. She pressed Patrick about details of the bill, including a portion that appears to require doctors to describe the phases of fetal development to a pregnant woman prior to performing the abortion. The current informed consent law, passed in 2003, requires doctors to provide the so-called Woman's Right to Know pamphlet, which describes fetal development and the alleged risks associated with abortion. Patrick's new language removes the provision that requires doctors to inform a woman of "her opportunity to review the information" contained in the WRTK pamphlet, instead requiring that the doctor provide and explain the information.

Time Out for History

Sometimes righteous anger can be a beautiful thing.  For instance, a FB friend of mine ranted about the kids on public transit yesterday who were bullying the transgendered person and how she told them off.  Nice!  This morning I read a post via The Edge of the American West (I believe the poster is one of The Edge's author's advisees) that laughingly and snarkingly takes down some historical fictions making the rounds these days in the guise of Truth.  He addresses the Boston Tea Party, the Right to Secede, We're not a Christian Nation, waterboarding and smiling at Chavez.  Here's the author's intro, U.S. History for Dummies:

So, as a public service of sorts, and because, after this morning's revelations, I've reached the limit of craven and/or patently stupid falsehoods that I can feasibly ingest over so short a time, some "U.S. History for Dummies." I expect most everyone who comes by this site with any frequency knows all this, but ya never know. Apologies for the didacticism in advance -- if this were this a Coors Light commercial, this would be where i vent. (And thanks to Lia for the timely visual tax lesson, above.)

What's that crytic comment about the visual tax lesson?  I must indirectly thank Lia as well because I'm going to reproduce it here.  It's an image from a Tea Party with arrows and small captions pointing out all the things that the protestor's tax money helped pay for in the small scene:

Michelle Bachmann: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann is at it again, flaunting her ignorance before the nation and making vague insinuations that Democrats are responsible for everything that goes wrong in America, including Swine Flu!  In the following clip, she notes the interesting fact that there was a swine flu outbreak back in the 1970's under Pres. Jimmy Carter (and doesn't bother pointing out there was a small outbreak a couple of years ago in Ohio:  Did the California H1N1 Swine Flu Come from Ohio?).  Thanks to Pharyngula for pointing out Bachman's lunacy, thanks to PajamasTV for giving Bachmann a platform and now lets roll the video:

Sen. Cornyn's Take On Specter

Sen. John Cornyn has been wrangling with Specter ever since he became the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and took on the challenge of trying to retain the GOP's senate seats and snag a few more.  There were questions as to whether the committee would endorse Specter or throw their support behind his challenger and there seemed to be some personality clashing between the two.  With Specter's switch, Cornyn's job becomes that much more difficult and solidifies the momentum running against the GOP--apparently I'm not the only one that Cornyn isn't doing a very good job representing.  He's flubbing his work in trying to be the chief GOP electioneer in the Senate as well.  Sound desperate much?

“Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.”

Being a former state supreme court justice, a former judge and all that, you'd think that Sen. Cornyn would remember that the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution has nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with tensions between federal and state governments and the tension between the three branches of government.

Democratic Senator Arlen Specter

I'm not going to make any predictions about how Specter's switch will affect the Congress, though I think it might loosen things up a bit, as the GOP will have less of a chance to filibuster things and so Reid will have less of a stick with which to beat Senators into line.  And with less of a chance to successfully block things, individual Republicans may feel more easily led to engage in debate.  But that's all crackpottery.  Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has some numbers (doesn't he always have some numbers?), this time on how voting patterns change after a Congressman switches parties, What Kind of Democrat Will Arlen Specter Be?  Read the rest of the post, not just this blurb, because that's where the real goodies are!

There are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances that may affect Specter's positioning. On the one hand, he seems to have made the switch more or less unabashedly for electoral reasons, even alluding to the polling in his statement today. This suggests that he'll be no more and no less Democratic than he can get away with. On the other hand, the parties are now more polarized than they once were, and so crossing the aisle may mean more than it once did. Prior to this party-switch, Specter's DW-NOMINATE scores had gradually been moving away from the center as it had become harder to stake out a position as a moderate Republican.

Sen. Specter to Switch Parties

MSNBC is breaking news that Sen. Arlen Specter is in talks to switch parties, which would give the Dems a fillibuster-proof majority once Franken is seated in Minnesota.  It appears that the Washington Post is reporting it's a done deal, Specter to Switch Parties:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

And now it's official:

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," the Pennsylvania senator said in a statement.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said, adding that the "change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans."

Sen. Cornyn is doing a bang-up job lining up candidates to retake the Senate in 2010!

Place 1: Cavazos or Riley?

The Statesman has an article on the City Council Place 1 candidates today, Place 1 Candidates Differ in Focus:

Perla Cavazos wants to make Austin City Hall more attentive to the needs of all residents along the economic spectrum. Chris Riley wants to help Austin evolve from a sprawl-oriented city into a more eco-friendly place with better transit options.

The two are vying for Place 1 on the City Council, the seat occupied by Lee Leffingwell, who's running for mayor. Election day is May 9.

Riley, an attorney, and Cavazos, a public policy analyst, don't differ much policywise. Both say they'll fight for basics, such as good social services and affordable housing. They've split endorsements pretty evenly. And both served on the Planning Commission, a group that helps shape city policy about land use.

But they have different backgrounds and interests.

Burnt Orange Report Endorses Riley:

The values expressed in that statement strongly guide our choice of Chris Riley over Perla Cavazos in this election. Our staff has met with and talked directly with the candidates on multiple occasions. We see how the candidates have reacted to questions in multiple forums. Those interactions and experiences lead us to the following conclusions.

Chris Riley wants, needs, and deserves to be on the city council. His passion for good city government is obvious. His vision for a model next-generation city that respects our environment is clear. His values are rooted in the Austin of old, the one he was born in raised in, while his education and lengthy public service give him the credibility to plan for the Austin of tomorrow. Chris Riley brings more than a new vote to the council, he brings a new perspective. He lives what he advocates.

The Chronicle also endorses Riley, Chronicle Endorsements:  May 9 Municipal Election:

Perla Cavazos has also been a breath of fresh air on the campaign trail, and she has legislative experience as well as serving a term on the city Planning Commission. Her personal background enables her to see city life from a perspective uncommon on the dais. When she discusses mass transit and "affordable housing," Cavazos speaks for families who measure transportation and housing affordability from paycheck to paycheck, not in the euphemistic terms of "median family income." Moreover, as a Hispanic woman, she ably represents a demographic segment of the city finally coming into its own for leadership and power. All this acknowledged, we believe her experience does not yet match in breadth or depth that of her opponent. We expect she will continue contributing to the city and broadening her experience, and we encourage her to return to the council contests before too long.

So does the Statesman in their endorsement article:

While little separates Cavazos and Riley in their campaigns, Riley has more experience and we believe is ready for the City Council. Cavazos has a good career ahead of her and with a bit more seasoning will be an even better candidate.

I don't see anything in any of these endorsements that would dissuade me from voting for Cavazos because it truly sounds like a situation where we have to choose between two good candidates.  And that's a nice problem to have.

Docubloggers: The Gay

(Editorial Note:  Yes, I tried, I really tried to type out "teh gay" in the headline but couldn't do it.  Somehow, I can do it mockingly in everyday emails and what-not but when I tried to do it in a HEADLINE, it proved impossible.)

Two videos from the good folks at Docubloggers today, once exploring the opinions of Texans on the subject of same-sex marriages (including Ron Paul) and the other is a discussion with Rep. Elliott Naishtat about  a bill before the house that would allow partner benefits for same-sex partners from the UT and A&M systems. 

The legislation is HB 861, a very simple bill that would authorize the university systems to define who can be the beneficiary of benefits earned by system employees and gives them the power to allow such benefits to go to same-sex partners.  This is both a moral issue, as currently we have a system that discriminates against gays and lesbians in the distribution of benefits and it's also a practical issue, as it makes the university systems less competitive in recruiting faculty.  The best universities in the nation offer such benefits and if the Texas systems wants to compete with them for the best professors and staff, they need to offer these benefits.  Sadly, this bill appears to be stuck in committee--it deserves a vote (give your reps a call!):

The opinions of Texans on gay-marriage video isn't that surprising, with most folks saying it should be a state issue or that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.  It's on the flip side, if anyone's interested.

Opposition to Kathleen Sibelius for Secretary of HHS

The GOP's grumbling about Pres. Obama's pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius, is getting a little bit louder but it's not based on much.  I'm seeing three major themes that are being tossed around--her tax mistake, support from a Kansas doctor who performs late term abortions and her support for comparative effectiveness research on medical services.  Sibelius won the approval of the Finance Committee on a 15-8 vote and should win overall approval by the Senate, but it probably won't be a quiet process.

Texans, Do You Feel Stimulated?

The Texas Comptroller has a website that tracks the spending and effects of stimulus spending in Texas--big ol' ten gallon hat tip to The Texas Observer for pointing this out, Comptroller's Stimulus Site.  It includes spreadsheets of what's going to be spent here, a master list of contacts for who's spending the money (in case you want to get your hands on some or you just want to send them a tea bag), the latest news on Texas stimulus efforts, plain English explanations of the legislation and more.  Check it out at American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:  A Texas Eye on the Dollars.

Revotes, Tabulation Errors, Margins of Error, Oh My

I've often wondered what the normal margin of error is in counting up an election and how that might affect the results in a tight race.  Like in Minnesota.  Fortunately, having Nate Silver around on FiveThirtyEight.com means that my speculative questions frequently get answered.  In response to a Wall Street Journal column, Minnesota's Missing Votes, calling for a recount due to what the author perceives as the legal mistakes made by the Minnesota courts, Silver writes in, When Does 'Close' Become 'Too Close to Call'?:

Given these assumptions, elections are actually fairly resistant to tabulation errors (even if such occurring at relatively high rates). This is because in most cases the errors will cancel out: you'll miss some blue marbles but also some red marbles. For instance, given a 5% error rate -- that would be 150,000 miscounted ballots (!) out of 3 million -- a 900-vote lead should hold up about 99% of the time given these assumptions. At more plausible (i.e. lower) rates of error, leads in the low triple-digits, or even the double digits, are generally quite robust.

Teabagging with Gov. Rick Perry

Just found this YouTube video of Rick Perry in full rebel mode--he's even covering up his good hair with a ballcap.  It's just really strange to see the Uber Pro Business Perry going all populist.  It's a 38-second clip so you can appreciate all the goodness with a minimal time commitment:

I've got the full eight minutes of his Austin address on the other side.  Oh, Snap!  He pulled a slick one about the 7:30 mark--he tells people to text to a number to show they're fed up--nice way to grab some cell phone numbers for your reelection bid.

Teabaggery

The first two minutes of this report is laden with more innuendo you can shake a stick at--very funny stuff but with some good reportage mixed in.  I've got the full segment up as I think it goes from a very funny intro into a very serious look at the roots of this "movement".  He points out the irony that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation and in our current fiscal situation we are fully represented*:

It should also be noted that HUNDREDS of Austinites are OUTRAGED and will be protesting at the state capitol and there will also be a couple of other tax day protests, Austinites Plan "Tea Parties" as Part of Nationwide Protests:

Americans for Prosperity's Texas branch has planned its own Austin tea party today at Austin City Hall, titled "Don't Mess with Texas," said Cindy Mallette, a local group director. Gov. Rick Perry will speak at the event, as will other local Republicans and Libertarians.

But in the days leading up to the rallies, some have begun to question the motives and timing of those involved.

Libertarians hold their own tax day protests outside Austin's downtown post office, said Wes Benedict, former executive director of the Libertarian Party of Texas. About 25 to 30 people usually attend, he said.

"I'm glad to see citizens show they're fed up with the high taxes, but I think a lot of these Republicans showing up are just hypocrites," he said. "The Republican machine is trying to get in front of a parade. They probably feel like they have to."

*Full representation does not apply for citizens of the District of Columbia.

Cuba Policy Changes

Baby Steps or Is That All There Is?

At Monday afternoon's press briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs began by outlining the changes that Pres. Obama was making to US foreign policy regarding Cuba and though all of the changes are welcome, they don't go nearly far enough.  Here's what Gibbs said, Reaching Out to the Cuban People:

Today, President Obama has directed that a series of steps be taken to reach out to the Cuban people to support their desire to enjoy basic human rights and to freely determine their country’s future.  The President has directed the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce to carry out the actions necessary to lift all restrictions on the ability of individuals to visit family members in Cuba, and to send them remittances.  He’s further directed that steps be taken to enable the freer flow of information among the Cuban people and between those in Cuba and the rest of the world, as well as to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian items directly to the Cuban people.

Looking closely, he's freeing up the rules on family visits and remittances to family members and he's also freeing up the flow of humanitarian aid to the Cuban people.  The rest doesn't really mean anything.  As Pres. Obama is a step-by-step kind of guy, I don't think this is going to be the final word and I believe that in the near future we will see more engagement with Cuba on the diplomatic front and eventually dropping the travel ban and stepping back the embargo.  He may go through Congress on some of these steps in order to give himself some political cover and use the institution to build broader support for changes.  And he may loosen things up by degrees in order to leverage his bargaining position and get Cuba to walk towards more openness with us in concert with our actions.

This is what I hope, at least.  For a good breakdown of some reactions in the press, check out Dan Froomkin's column, Obama's Timid Cuba Move.  For instance, he quotes Eugene Robinson's column (registration required to view):

"Those who argue for keeping in place the trade embargo and what remains of the travel restrictions -- and even predict that these measures, imposed at a time when the Cold War was getting chillier, will bring the Castro government to its knees any day now -- have been drinking too many mojitos. Claims that the United States would somehow surrender valuable "leverage" by lifting the sanctions are purest fantasy....

"What we should do is lift the embargo, which Obama hasn't meaningfully disturbed, and end the travel ban for everyone. That would put the onus on the Cubans to somehow keep hordes of American capitalists and tourists from infecting the island with dangerous, counterrevolutionary ideas."

Good Faith, Bad Faith and Bipartisanship

Nate Silver, the numbers king over at FiveThirtyEight.com, has a rather long look at Obama's meaning when he uses the word "bipartisanship", whether he's coming through on his promises to reach across the aisle and whether the administration and the GOP are acting in good faith as they work together (or not).  It's not ground-breaking work but I found it very good in laying out the situation and taking a look at both sides.  Nate leans left and so if your orientation is more to the other side there's probably plenty to disagree with, but then that's what the comment function is for, right?  Check it out, What Would a Bipartisan Obama Look Like? (Hint:  A Lot Like the One We're Seeing):

It is perhaps worth pausing to note that two key circumstances changed from late 2007, when Obama was most frequently using his "bipartisan" rhetoric. The first circumstance was that John McCain, who himself had a strong reputation for bipartisanship, became the Republican nominee. "Bipartisanship", therefore, became less important as a differentiator for Obama than it might have been against a more unapologetically party-line Republican like a Mitt Romney or a Fred Thompson. The other contingency, of course, was the economic collapse that accelerated throughout 2008 and particularly in September and October of last year. Once the economy fell apart, people weren't so concerned about abstractions like bipartisanship -- they simply wanted the problems solved.

More essentially, however, bipartisanship, as Obama intended the term, should not necessarily be confused for "compromise". Rather, it implied behaving in good-faith -- hearing out opinions from different sides of the aisle and identifying the best ideas regardless of their partisan origin. Bipartisanship, to Obama, was a process rather than an outcome. He could plausibly have been acting in a bipartisan manner, even if he hadn't gotten many Republicans to go along with his agenda.

Tea Parties

Andrew Sullivan has a fairly lucid post wondering what the hell those ranty Tea Parties are supposed to be protesting,  The Tea Tantrum Movement:

As a fiscal conservative who actually believed in those principles when the Republicans were in power, I guess I should be happy at this phenomenon. And I would be if it had any intellectual honesty, any positive proposals, and any recognizable point. What it looks like to me is some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don't feel part of the culture at all. But the only word for that is: tantrum.

These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It's a function of a movement's intellectual collapse and a party's fast-accelerating nervous breakdown.

Corn-based Ethanol Smackdown

The CBO has posted a report and a blog entry on the short and long term costs of ethanol made from corn and whether it is beneficial to continue subsidizing and requiring it.  I'm glad to see it and hopefully it will give Congress the cover it needs to have  real policy debate on it.  Hat tip to Grist for publicizing the report (The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and here's a bit from the blog post, Ethanol, Food Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Most ethanol in the United States is produced from domestically grown corn, and the rapid rise in the fuel’s production and usage means that roughly one-quarter of all corn grown in the U.S. (nearly 3 billion bushels) is now used to produce ethanol. The demand for corn for ethanol production has exerted upward pressure on corn prices and on food prices in general. CBO estimates that the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008.