Discourse.net

In the Interests of (Social) Science (Repeat)

According to a very polite email I got two weeks ago, a research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

They’re doing a study and in the hope of getting politically aware respondents are asking bloggers to pass on their request to fill out their survey. The study will, they hope, “shed light on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election”. They “seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world)” to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which they promise will be completely anonymous.

It looks legit.

One interesting aspect of the request is that I turn off comments on this item: “a necessary precaution we have to take in order to avoid the bias that is likely to result when new respondents see comments about the survey before taking it.” That sounds sensible, so I’ve complied with the request.

Another is that they want time series data:

… we would like to have respondents complete the survey throughout the days leading up to the Election. To this end, if would be ideal if you were willing to have the link appear (i.e., repost it) four times, in equally spaced out intervals (about every two weeks), with the first running asap and the last running several days prior to Election Day. Of course, if you would be willing to post it even once, it would already be a great help to us.

So, what the heck, I’ve queued it up for science. Excuse the repeats.

In the Interests of (Social) Science

According to a very polite email I got today, a research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

They’re doing a study and in the hope of getting politically aware respondents are asking bloggers to pass on their request to fill out their survey. The study will, they hope, “shed light on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election”. They “seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world)” to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which they promise will be completely anonymous.

It looks legit.

One interesting aspect of the request is that I turn off comments on this item: “a necessary precaution we have to take in order to avoid the bias that is likely to result when new respondents see comments about the survey before taking it.” That sounds sensible, so I’ve complied with the request.

Another is that they want time series data:

…we would like to have respondents complete the survey throughout the days leading up to the Election. To this end, if would be ideal if you were willing to have the link appear (i.e., repost it) four times, in equally spaced out intervals (about every two weeks), with the first running asap and the last running several days prior to Election Day. Of course, if you would be willing to post it even once, it would already be a great help to us.

So, what the heck, I’ve queued it up for science. Excuse the repeats.

[slightly edited since the original posting]

Zinger

Someone at Jack and Jill Politics has a wicked sense of humor.

Don't Look Behind that Curtain!

Greenwald, AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party. Worth reading.

Le plus ça change, le plus c’est la même chose

'The Racial Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency'

This Daily Kos diarist's take on The Racial Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency is deeply cynical, but that doesn't make it wrong.

More Evidence that Hilary Clinton Has Bad Taste In Men

Via Delong, Ezra Klein on the Disloyalty of the Clinton Staffers:

The most powerful case against Clinton’s candidacy was always her political advisers. They were, and are, the sort who sign up with Fox News, and enter into business partnerships with Karen Hughes. And they do all that while they’re still associated with Clinton, and when their services might still be needed in the near future.

Clinton’s domestic policy instincts often seemed better than Obama’s, but her political instincts, as evidenced by the folks she gathered around her, were far worse. It was hard to believe anyone who’s internal compass pointed progressive would nevertheless spend millions of dollars asking Mark Penn for advice. The answer, from Clinton supporters, was always that it was about loyalty. These folks had been in the foxhole with Clinton, and she trusted them.

But there’s nothing loyal about Penn’s decision to partner with Hughes, or Wolfson’s decision to rush to Fox — these moves hurt Clinton.

This bad taste in advisers is not news. It dates back to her White House days when she relied on Ira Magaziner to do her health plan numbers. Oddly, President Clinton on the whole had better taste in cronies. But don’t get me started on his judge picks, which were all over the map.

200 Days To Go

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Go Read Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald, British debate highlights the cravenness and complicity of congressional Democratic “leaders” .

Please say it ain’t so — they can’t really be selling us out like this on FISA, can they?

Must Read

Rick Perlstein, The Meaning of Box 722 in light of Sen. Obama’s historic victory this week.

Best thing you’ll read online today. Heck, maybe this week, and it’s quite a week.

This excerpt from the start doesn’t really do the essay justice, as it picks up steam as it goes along, but at least it sets the stage,

When I started researching NIXONLAND I knew the congressional elections of 1966 would form a crucial part of the narrative. They’d never really been examined in-depth before, but by my reckoning they were the crucial hinge that formed the ideological alignment we live in now.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson—and, apparently, liberalism—achieved such a gigantic landslide victory that it appeared to pundits the Republican Party would be forever consigned to the outer darkness if it ever entertained a Goldwater-style conservative law-and-order platform again. Two years later, most of the new liberal congressmen swept in on LBJ’s coattails—the congressional class that gave us Medicare and Medicaid, the first serious environmental legislation, National Endowments for the Humanities and Arts, Head Start, the Voting Rights Act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the end of racist immigration quotas, Legal Aid, and more—was swept out on a tide of popular reaction.

That reaction, I hope I demonstrate effectively in NIXONLAND, rested on two pillars: terror at the wave of urban rioting that began in the Watts district of Los Angeles; and terror at the prospect of the 1966 civil rights bill passing, which, by imposing an ironclad federal ban on racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing—known as “open housing”—would be the first legislation to impact the entire nation equally, not just the South. (What that reaction most decidedly did not rest on: fear and loathing of “hippies,” which were unknown, except in California, to most of the nation until 1967; or antiwar activists, which were not associated with either party, because Republicans and Democrats had about an equal number of hawks and doves in 1966.)

When I learned that the papers of Senator Paul Douglas were at the Chicago Historical Society (as it was known then; now it’s cursed with the decidedly more prosaic name the Chicago History Museum), I decided to make Douglas’s 1966 loss to Republican Charles Percy a key case study for my hypothesis.

Got anything as good to recommend? Please note it in the comments.

Sen. McConnell Sings the Congressional Republican Songbook

Sen. Mitch McConnell revives an American Classic of political song in this little video, Elephant Feathers: or Whatever It Is, Mitch Is Against It!

The Republican Creed

I did the entry below a few days ago, and then got unsure about posting it. I like political jokes, but maybe this was too mean? And then I saw this: RNC careful not to humanize Clinton, Obama — and I decided what the heck. Besides, it’s almost all true. So here goes:

From Frank Kaiser,

THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A REPUBLICAN TODAY …..

• Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.
• Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
• A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
• The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.
• If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.
• A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
• Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
• Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
• A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
• Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
• Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
• You support states’ rights, but the Attorney General can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

Lame Duck Watch

We seem suddenly to be in serious lame duck territory.

And, can you imagine a major network running anything even remotely like this a year ago? Much less less three or four years ago?

Good Lottery Numbers

The lottery is a tax on stupidity, since the expected value of a ticket is so low. So I don’t imagine many readers of this blog buy lottery tickets.

But if you are betting, may I suggest these numbers: 84, 60, 53, 51, 43, 36 and 32.

Those would be Bush’s poll ratings around the time of each State of the Union address.

Spot the Difference

Democratic idea of bipartisan cooperation:

House Democrats will postpone votes on criminal contempt citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, while congressional leaders work with President Bush on a bipartisan stimulus package to fend off an economic downturn, according to party leaders and leadership aides.

“Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would ‘step on their message’ of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks.

One day later — Bush idea of bipartisanship:

Justice Nomination Seen as Snub to Democrats

The Justice Department lawyer who wrote a series of classified legal opinions in 2005 authorizing harsh C.I.A. interrogation techniques was renominated by the White House on Wednesday to a senior department post, a move that was seen as a snub to Senate Democrats who have long opposed his appointment.

Judging by the results, one has to admit that the White House plays this game much better than the hapless Democrats, who cave time and time again. How did they become such sniveling cowards, and on what possible theory of politics do they think this serves their — much less the nation’s — interests?

It seems all too likely that we’re going to see a worse example of cowardice today, as leading democrats have been signaling that they’d love to cave in on FISA. Senator Dodd will filibuster, but the question is who if anyone will join him.

Still Going Strong

It’s been too long since I recommended that people read the Daily Howler. Today’s, Daily Howler: Parents should show their children the Post—and tell them they mustn’t be like that, is a real classic.

Euphemism Watch

Enhanced Interrogation Technique: Torture

Intelligent Design: Creationism

Regime Change : Coups

Add yours.

A Finding With Many Implications

Is a photo worth a thousand votes?:

People asked to rate the competence of an individual based on a quick glance at a photo predicted the outcome of elections more than two-thirds of the time.

Nearly 300 students at Princeton University were asked to look at pairs of photographs for as little as one-tenth of a second and pick the individual they felt was more competent, psychologist Alexander Todorov reports in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The participants were shown photos of leading candidates for governor or senator in other parts of the country, but they were not told they were evaluating candidates. Those who recognized any of the photos were not counted.

When the elections took place two weeks later, the researchers found that the competency snap judgments predicted the winners in 72.4 percent of the senatorial races and 68.6 percent of the gubernatorial races.

It seems to me that this finding, if valid, has many implications.

• National political parties should focus group photos before deciding who to recruit or support in primaries
• I’ll bet it’s a very sexist test — this may explain part of how elections disadvantage female candidates.
• I wonder if this works for law schools? Would student satisfaction be higher when taught by professors whose looks signaled competence? Can we focus group potential hires via their photos? Can we do it without disadvantaging anyone who’s not a white male of a certain age?
• Might it be that dress sends signals of competence? If so, is it important to dress up (or down?) for the first day of class?
• “Lookist” takes on a new meaning
• Do I sense the makings of a new suspect class? Are people who don’t look competent to others a “discrete and insular minority”? Certainly their disability affect electability, thus undermining their political power, which is one of the tests….

And, how do I look?

Base Arguments

Political discourse continues to be further and further debased.

We get the government we deserve? A frightening thought.

Down We Go

Glenn Greenwald, who seems from his writing to be both shrewd and decent, argues that at present there is no alternative to the politics of the lowest common denominator:

as the MoveOn vote demonstrated, we have the opposite of a healthy political system, and it is thus far preferable — for reasons I I set forth here — to ensure that a corrupt standard is applied equally rather than allow it to be applied by one political faction against another. Taking the corrupt political tactics wielded by the war-hungry Right and applying those same tactics to them (rather than ineffectively protesting the unfairness of the tactics) is the only way to ensure they cease.

Please persuade me he’s not right.

Priorities

The Democrats (and a some Republicans) want to increase funding for medical care for poor children. The specter of healthy poor children cased by the expenditure of tax money has so terrified GW Bush that it has turned him into a born-again fiscal tightwad, or so his stennographers would have it. (Actually, for some strange reason the stenography is silent on the subject of the children…)

The debate is pretty simple: how many kids to insure in the federal scheme, with the understanding that as the number grows, the program reaches up into the working poor and even if funded to Democratic levels, substantially above the poverty line.

The Speaker’s office has more on the issue, along with a nice chart comparing the cost of this program to a few weeks of the Iraq occupation. (They call it a war.)

But Does He Scare the Horses?

George Bush the Texan is ‘scared of horses’

President Bush may like to be seen as a swaggering tough guy with a penchant for manly outdoor pursuits, but in a new book one of his closest allies has said he is afraid of horses.

Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico, derided his political friend as a “windshield cowboy” – a cowboy who prefers to drive – and “the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life”.

He recalled a meeting in Mexico shortly after both men had been elected when Mr Fox offered Mr Bush a ride on a “big palomino” horse.

Mr Fox, who left office in December, recalled Mr Bush “backing away” from the animal.

”A horse lover can always tell when others don’t share our passion,” he said, according to the Washington Post.

Mr Bush has spoken of his fondness for shooting doves and cutting brush on his Crawford ranch in Texas, which he bought in 1999.

The property reportedly has no horses and only five cattle.

Fascinating Discussion About AEI

These two blog posts about the AEI,

• Steve Clemons, Norman Ornstein’s AEI/Neocon Problem
• Mark Schmitt’s My Life Among the Neo-Cons

are really interesting, and the howls in the comments to them are even more so.

Both are mainstream partial defenses of the AEI-as-it-was (an anti-Brookings) and to a very much more limited extent as it is — a think tank in the tank to donors, overrun with neo-con supports of draconian social policies and extremist militarist aggression eerily reminiscent of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff, which nonetheless remains a home to a few policy people who don’t live on a full-time diet of Kool-Aid.

In the comments, some people agree that the AEI deserves props for lingering broad-mindedness (and the lingerers don’t deserve guilt by association); others say that conditions have reached a point where guilt by association is appropriate; still others attack the very idea of policy ‘analysis’ that isn’t willing or able to subject itself to peer review, there’s debate as to whether a think-tank is more effective if it’s centrist and nuanced, or extreme and rabid, and so on …. All in all, something to read.

Healthcare Politics in a Few Words

In We Are All Uninsured Now the Mahablog pithily describes the sorry state of current health care politics.

Straussians Everywhere

Digby, Hail Caesar.

Sterling Newberry Does a Jeremiad

Over at The Agonist, Sterling Newberry does a three-part Jeremiad about the state of modern politics.

• The Decade is Done Part I
• The Fall of the House of Gusher
• The Decade is Done: Hillary Reagan Clinton

Bottom line is that we’re into a new politics of scarcity and fighting over a pie that isn’t growing and may shrink. Rather than try to assemble a progressive coalition, however, the leading Democrat is playing to the (richer) suburbs.

I’m sympathetic to the claim that a big difference between progressives and neo-conservatives is one favors universalizing programs (rural electrification, health care) and the other thinks it saves money by leaving poor people behind (give the unemployed tax breaks for health care). I am not as persuaded by the description of the coalitions:

Let me summarize then the different cleavages:

1. Within the Democratic Coalition there was a three fold divide: rural Democrats, suburban Democrats, Urban Democrats. The first Republican victory was to cleave the Dixiecratic, if not in location, in cultural pattern vote away from the Democrats, by having resource inflation and big defense budgets. Reagan then cleaved away the suburbanists as a bloc and formed a coalition.

2. Within the surburbanists, there is a division between those that make their money from cities, and those that make their money from defense, resources and sprawl. It was the Rovian understanding that the resource suburbanists were more closely tied to the resource exurbanites than the city suburbanists were to the urbanists. That in a series of political conflicts, the resource bloc would vote as a bloc against two blocs that could easily be divided over a variety of issues.

3. Within the present Democratic coalition, there is a conflict between whether the urbanist or suburbanist wing of the party will be dominant. This division is rapidly closing, because Iraq and corruption are seen by all of them as benefiting the exurbanists.

4. Within the Republican coalition there is a division between the resource extractionists tied to oil, and those tied to agriculture. The agricultural rural voters have been slapped silly by both the war, which has bled them of precious young people, and by high energy prices.

I think it is too economically determinist, for one thing.

But this part sounds right:

Washington is out of touch with, however, a fundamental, and essential, indeed crucial change that is happening: the rift between cities and financial suburbs is rapidly healing, over issues which are in the short term more important than the dwindling wins of offshoring and the rapidly disappearing differences over inflation containment of health and education versus universalization. For one thing, both groups are pro-immigration: since both groups rely on waves of new entrants. For another, off-shoring is now gutting suburbanist jobs as fast as urbanist jobs. For a third thing, the urbanists have an ideology which makes cities, not rural hinterlands, seem the cutting edge of political, economic and social values.

And I worry that this might be right too:

It is into this environment that Hillary Reagan Clinton steps. On one hand she is the only figure in the Democratic party that can unify the suburbanist bloc of the party. The only one. This gives her a base of between 35% and 40% of the party. Enough to win the nomination doing nothing but playing defense. …

In short, Hillary moved far enough to the left to convince self-deluded suburbanists that she won’t gut the cities. But she is proposing exactly that, and the cities, and the rural voters, understand this. She offers exactly nothing.

…However, the very “no brainer” road to the White House as a liberal Reaganite dooms Hillary in the short Thousands as much as it makes her the obvious choice in the long Thousands. This for the simple reason that while the city facing suburbs can defeat the rural and urban elements of the Democratic party as long as those elements are divided, it cannot govern. It cannot govern because of the packing of urban districts, which are now filled with legislators who are immune to suburban pressures, since they have almost no suburban voters any more. A generation ago the pizza slice districts combined urban and suburban votes. It cannot govern because the suburbs do not float above the rest of the planet. It cannot govern because the oil resource Republicans are going to demand enormous, and unpayable, concessions to not attack Hillary into the ground.

There is not enough money in the treasury to bribe the hinterlands, and fix the suburbanists problems with medicare and social security.

Sterling promises a part four, that sounds like it might be more optimistic. But then, what good Jeremiad doesn’t end with a path to redemption, while of course lamenting that it is unlikely to be followed?

Worth a read, even if it raises your blood pressure.

How to Write Effective Letters to Congress

Firedoglake, Correspondence School, walks us through how to communicate with Congressfolk & Senators for maximum impact. Apparently, sending letters to DC, and the district office and making a phone call are likely to get you triple-counted sometimes.

Check on the Ratings for Bridges in Your Neighborhood

MSNBC.com does a real public service by publishing this State-by-state list of deficient or obsolete bridges. A deficient bridge is what it sounds like; obsolete means that while the bridge doesn’t have major maintenance issues, the design isn’t sufficient for modern traffic volumes.

Not surprisingly, the North-east, with the oldest infrastructure and a vicious freeze-thaw-heat cycle does worst overall, although the Midwest isn’t doing great. Florida, being a fast-growth Sunbelt state has more troubles with “obsolete” bridges (is every bridge in Miami on that list?) than deficient ones.

Happy July 4, 2007

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

600 Blows

I make it 600 more days of the Bush admnistration

Prozac Nation, or the Eye of the Hurricane?

“Most people are under-reacting” to the latest Bush scandals.

That’s what Jonathan Chait (& The Carpetbagger Report) say. And indeed, people are awfully calm about this stuff. The question is why.

So which is it: Is this seeming calm

(a) A classic case of boiled frog;
(b) A recognition that there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, even if it is still 641 days away;
(c) Because we trust Congress to staunch the wounds now;
(d) A media illusion; or,
(e) Real, because it’s not really such a big deal?

Or is there an (f) I’m overlooking?

On Imus

One of the few things I’ve read on the Imus situation this week that wasn’t totally predictable: Making Carefully Nuanced Distinctions Regarding the Totally Unacceptable.

US Treaty With Tripoli 1796-97

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797: Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli and Barbary.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

…

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The implications for modern politics are left as an exercise for the reader.

Bush Supporters and Buyer's Remorse

Even some of Bush’s own senior campaign staff now have buyer’s remorse: Ex-Aide Details a Loss of Faith in the President.

So who are those three out of ten people who tell pollsters they support him?

Bush’s support still exceeds that of perennial French presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front (FN) who currently has 17% support.

Worsts

The current administration has managed to achieve an impressive number of record-breaking worsts.

Early Winners

• George W. Bush - our worst President ever. Yes, even worse than James Buchanan
• Richard Cheney - worst Vice President ever
• Donald Rumsfeld - worst SecDef ever
• Alberto Gonzales - worst AG ever (despite tough competition)
• John Bolton - worst UN Ambassador ever
• Alphonso Jackson - worst HUD Secretary ever
• Michael D. Brown - worst FEMA Director ever

• Dr. Condoleezza Rice - arguably worst National Security Advisor ever (gunning for SecState nomination too)
• John Snow - worst Secretary of the Treasury since the Depression (and maybe before?)
• Tommy Thomspon Tom Ridge vs. Michael Chertoff. One of them has to be the worst HDHS Secretary ever, as they are the only two in the department's history.  My money is on ThompsonRidge.
• Margret Spellings - worst Secretary of Education?
• Harriet Miers - worst White House Counsel?
• [update] Tommy Thompson - HHS (for presiding over this)?

Care to add to the list?

Molly on W

The president of the United States does not have the sense God gave a duck — so it’s up to us. You and me, Bubba.

This war is being prosecuted in our names, with our money, with our blood, against our will. Polls consistently show that less than 30 percent of the people want to maintain current troop levels. It is obscene and wrong for the president to go against the people in this fashion. And it’s doubly wrong for him to send 20,0000 more soldiers into this hellhole, as he reportedly will announce next week.

I don’t know why Bush is just standing there like a frozen rabbit, but it’s time we found out. The fact is WE have to do something about it. This country is being torn apart by an evil and unnecessary war, and it has to be stopped NOW.

What happened to the nation that never tortured? The nation that wasn’t supposed to start wars of choice? The nation that respected human rights and life? A nation that from the beginning was against tyranny? Where have we gone? How did we let these people take us there? How did we let them fool us?

—Molly Invins (1944-2007) quoted at Nieman Watchdog Commentary | An appreciation: Mintz on Molly Ivins.

Sen. Jim Webb's Speech

Now that’s a speech.

Full text below.

Democratic Response of Senator Jim Webb To the President’s State of the Union Address

Good evening.

I’m Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We’ve introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We’ve established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We’re working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm’s way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.

The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

I wonder how long before Webb ends up on people’s veep lists?

Move Over "Truthiness" -- Here Comes "Researchiness"

Gotta hand it to the folks at Free Exchange on Campus. They know how to get their point across:

Everybody certainly now knows that "truthiness" is a fundamental tenet of politics.  How else would we be able to separate out who knows the truth in their gut and those who want to over-think everything?  But still, there are those who continue to press for evidence to support public policy positions.  Luckily, there is an answer.

Here is the problem: academics, scientists, think tank fellows, and other trouble-makers are always talking about their "methods" (I think there is even something they call the "scientific method") and their "criteria" for conducting studies--you know the ones: testing hypotheses, double-blind studies, repeatability, objectivity, etc.  But what does that get us?  Just more studies, more questions, more complexity--and really, is that useful?  Of course it isn't.  What we need is some research that helps us prove what we already believe.  Because who can argue with research, right?

I'm not talking about the kind of research with all those standards that get in the way of getting results. I'm talking about starting with a conclusion you want to support, doing a few "scientificy-looking" studies and then writing a report--a report based on what we call "researchiness."

Here is what I am talking about.  Say you want to show that professors are a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals who are obsessed with controlling the minds of all those innocent freshman entering college each year.  What better way than to randomly go through a few course catalogs, find the types of courses that you ideologically disagree with, and then write a report as if those courses represent the whole of higher education?  So much easier than actually looking at all 4,000-plus institutions and all of the courses offered--that would just take too long.  And besides we already know most colleges are one-step away from a gulag.

Or maybe you are trying to show that these crazy liberals are too concerned with seeing education as a means of creating more opportunities for all students.  Sure they call it "diversity," but we all know what that really means--keeping the rich and privileged those who deserve to go to college down!  Let's not get bogged down in any economic analysis of access to college or who benefits most from college.  Again, too much data collection--not to mention math!  Besides, Google can do all that work for you just by counting the number of times the word diversity shows up on a college website.  It is just so much easier when you know what you want to say before you start.

And of course the best part of researchiness is that you can refer to other researchiness reports as evidence of your own findings.

So, it seems unfair that there is this new report out The "Faculty Bias" Studies: Science or Propaganda (PDF) that is trying to hold a set of recent researchiness studies to scientific standards.  C'mon.  These are not supposed to be actual research studies.  They aren't looking to discover anything.  They are trying to prove what they already know! 

So, you can just go tell this Dr. John Lee to take his "social science criteria" and his "findings" and go back to wherever he came from (my bet is some university!).  These pseudo-scientists already know what they know and there are just trying to put together some baseless claims evidence to support for their predetermined positions.

But if you insist on actual research standards and are too afraid to stand up for what everyone should just know in their gut (supported by researchiness, of course), then I guess you can read the silly report (PDF).

The Conservative Crack-Up Begins

Glenn Greenwald points to an NPR essay by a New Republic stalwart -- Rod Dreher: "Hadn't the hippies tried to tell my generation this"?

Better late than later.

Testing Times for Tester Already

Senator Jon Tester's been in office about a day, and already people are fretting about whether his staff choices -- mostly DC insiders -- are going to get with the program or are going to waffle.

Left in the West :: It's Official Today, Jon -- Now How Will You Use This Opportunity? I'm writing this letter, though, because -- to be honest -- a lot of us feel pushed aside, like we're not to be trusted. It's a strange feeling when you get the impression that you can't be trusted by the campaign you gave a year-and-a-half of your life to. But that's the feeling I've been getting -- and I know, once again, that I'm not alone.

Why do I feel this way? Why do others who were among your earliest backers feel this way? Honestly, some of it is personnel decisions. It's nothing against any of them in particular, it's just that the team as a whole doesn't really share the values of the Jon I know. Early on in the campaign, we talked about fighting for the middle class and standing up on trade deals. Now your top policy person comes from a Senator who supported CAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, and full repeal of the estate tax. Last I checked, you didn't want to represent multi-national corporations, Wall Street, or the super-rich. Bridget may be wonderful. I have no idea. But I worry about anyone who spent six years with Bill Nelson.

I worry about what your team will be saying on policy. In the primary, you announced that you wanted a universal Children's Health Insurance Program. Will you be signing on to one soon? What's your big goal on energy -- you'll be on the committee and it's an issue that you care about deeply. If a bankruptcy bill comes up and we can repeal that attack on working families, will you oppose it the way we did in the campaign?

You need a staff that has people at the top who share your values and whose first concern is for you and whether they are running the office the way you would want to. That means that they share your priorities -- even if your priority isn't getting re-elected. Otherwise, on these big decisions, the fight will be non-stop between you and your staff. And while there should be disagreements on the staff and between you and the staff, I want to avoid everything being a battle for you.

You also need a staff that realizes that this race was won as much by the first 3,000 votes you got as it was by the last 3,000 votes you got. The people I know who came together early on to say you could do this are some of the smartest, hardest working people I know in this game. And, unless I'm wrong, it seemed like you enjoyed our company quite a bit, too.

You know me, Jon. I've got a lot of faith in you as a person and as a policymaker. You're now in a place I don't fully understand and that I think it'll take some adjusting to on your end. Beyond that, I hope you know that I am loyal to you -- probably to a fault. I wouldn't be writing this if I wasn't worried. And I wouldn't be writing this if I wasn't hearing from a lot of other people who worked hard for you -- making phone calls, pounding pavement -- that they are also worried.

It may sound premature, although it is far from harsh. ("The revolution eats its children"?) But from what I hear this letter -- and the fairly widespread feelings it reflects -- was sparked not only by the failure to hire any of the insurgent locals as DC staff, but also by some strange comments by Tester's new staff people denigrating his core supporters.

Incidentally, the author of the above, Matt Singer, didn't apply for a job with Tester in DC, so this isn't sour grapes.

This is Hilarious

Lieberman Party Now in Hands of Critic:

After the senator's Nov. 7 victory under the Connecticut for Lieberman Party banner, John Orman switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Connecticut for Lieberman and voted himself chairman.

Orman, a political science professor who ran briefly against Lieberman last year, said only critics, bloggers and anyone named Lieberman can join the party, which he said would be a watchdog of the senator's actions.

Who Does that Cast as Caligula?

Military considers recruiting foreigners - The Boston Globe

I don't want to sound like I'm catching creeping Spenglerism, after all this is only a trial balloon albeit one with antecedents (see #5 on this generally horrifying list), but isn't recruiting foreign legions said to be one of the (many) causes of the downfall of the Roman empire?

Yup.

The introduction of barbarians into the Roman armies became every day more universal, more necessary, and more fatal . . . As they freely mingled with the subjects of the empire, they gradually learned to despise their manners and to imitate their arts. ... and though most of them preferred the ties of allegiance to those of blood, they did not always avoid the guilt, or at least the suspicion, of holding a treasonable correspondence with the enemy, of inviting his invasion, or of sparing his retreat.

And, yes, the headline may be a cheap shot, since Caligula was part of the Western (Roman) empire, and I think in in the quote above Gibbon was writing about the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire. But "Who does that cast as Diocletian?", or Theodosius I, Flavius Zeno or Justin II, would all be better questions, but wouldn't have the same zing.

Whatever Gibbon meant, given the state of things inside the Beltway and outside our borders, it's to the Byzantine and not the Roman Empire that we should be looking to for models. So here's a nice academic parlor game: Which Byzantine Emperor does W most resemble?

Creeping Spenglerism

One thing I'm seeing a lot more of these days is 'Creeping Spenglerism' -- a sense that the US is on the edge of some sort decline, even death spiral.

Now even professional humorists are doing it,

The Portland Freelancer: When young people ask me for career advice - and that's a little frightening right there - I always advise them to learn a skill they can perform to amuse the people around a campfire. Then if everyone laughs ask to share any food. I am only half kidding. America has been arrogant for too long, and it could be about to catch up with us.

This sort of talk makes me want to vote for John Edwards -- as far as I know, he's the only guy out there running a campaign of optimism.

Real Congressional Transparency

This is great. I hope we see a lot more of it.

Congress and the Benefits of Sunshine: Representative-elect Kirsten Gillibrand has decided to post details of her work calendar on the Internet at the end of each day so constituents can tell what she is actually doing for their money.

In fact, it is a quiet touch of revolution. The level of transparency pledged by Ms. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York -- down to naming lobbyists and fund-raisers among those she might meet with -- is simply unheard of in Congress. The secrecy that cloaks the dealings of lawmakers and deep-pocket special interests underpinned the corruption issue that Ms. Gillibrand invoked as voters turned Republicans from majority rule last month.

For all the worthy proposals for ethics reform being hashed out by the incoming Congress, a heavy dose of Internet transparency should not be overlooked in the effort to repair lawmakers' tattered credibility. The technology is already there, along with the public's appetite for more disclosure about the byways of power in Congress.

The Web is increasingly wielded by both campaign donors and bloggers clicking and tapping as wannabe muckrakers. Politicians would be wise to catch up. Local citizens were enlisted to track pork-barrel abuses in the last campaign by a new watchdog organization, the Sunlight Foundation, which enlisted Ms. Gillibrand's disclosure pledge. It aims to have voters use the Internet as an engine of political information.

Thin edge of the populist wedge!

Weird Senatorial Scenarios

Daily Kos peruses Senate arcana in Could Johnson's absence throw the Senate into chaos? to speculate as to various GOP strategies to prevent Democratic control.

It's well worth a read.

I just want to point out one thing: every single strategy described here, including filibustering the organizing resolution, would work equally well (or poorly) if Sen. Johnson were hale and present. So it's hard to see how they would be more (or less) justified by his illness, so long as the Senators present were still split 50-49 in favor of the Democrats.

Update: More goodies from Jonathan Singer at MyDD.

My Only Post on the Hoyer-Murtha Race

Pelosi endorsed Murtha. Hoyer won big. David Sirota spins 'Hoyer Beats Murtha' so well that I would end up believing him if I could bring myself to care about this race.

That said, it's a little eerie to contemplate that when the last Speaker to usher in a revolutionary-change-of-party Congress took office, his first act was to back a losing candidate for the #2 job: In 1994, Newt Gingrich's choice for Majority Whip, Robert Walker, was defeated by ... Tom DeLay.

Let's hope history won't repeat itself too much.

Stealth Realignment

Billmon is perplexed: how did it happen that the Reagan Democrats have started sounding like '70s left-liberals?

I suspect that it's all about betrayal. The Reagan Dems felt betrayed by the left, because it gave them disrespect (and empowered women and minorities while white guys were having status anxiety), because they blamed the Left for "losing Vietnam", and because when times weren't good Reagan promised shiny tax cuts without pain (remember the Laffer curve?).

Slow to change, slow to change back, but not stupid. The Reagan Dems are concluding that they've been betrayed (they'd say "again"), and they're mad about it. They still don't get respect, this time for having the wrong bank balance instead of the wrong sexual politics. They blame the Right for Iraq, and who wouldn't? Times if anything feel worse, but those tax cuts turned out be worth $50, raises lag medical insurance inflation, and the idea that today's tax cuts for rich folks are tomorrow's tax increases for the rest of us is starting to take hold --the checkbook metaphor is a powerful one for folks who feel economically precarious.

Meanwhile gays turned out not be so scary now that they're out of the closet and are revealed to be real folks, like the neighbor's kid. Throw in the GOP's corruption, and Reagan Democrats need a new home. The DLC is just Reagan Lite, so that's no use. Why not economic populism? The only strange thing about it is having populist leaders willing to argue for their followers' true interests...

The Democrats' Stunning Win -- What Does It Mean?

By any measure — except the inflated spin of Republican commentators who tried to move the goalposts — this is an historic victory for the Democratic party, even if they don’t end up with a Senate majority. They have a real margin in the House, and picked up several governorships.

More importantly, the candidates elected to the House and Senate are by and large much smarter and more progressive than any entering class since 1994.

What does it mean? I think it means three things:

• Voters gave Democrats a mandate for change and accountability. Or to put it more bluntly, the people decided that an intervention was needed for this administration.
• The pocketbook is back as an issue: just talking about tax cuts is no longer a winning strategy. America looked in its wallet and purses, saw that the tax cuts weren’t there – and neither were any raises.
• And, post-Katrina and Iraq, people are warming to the idea that incompetent government is a bad thing – and that good government might just be worth paying for.

Quip

According to reports, Fidel Castro is alert and being briefed. And I'm thinking, why didn't we get a president like that?

A Parsimonious Theory

I had to link to this for the headline, even more than the content, Is Dick Cheney a Sith Lord?

Happy July 4, 2006

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Rebarbative

Heard an excerpt from Bush's Memorial Day address on the radio while driving around today, including the line, "In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war."

Yes, he really said that.

There Is a Theme Here

• Grunt's-eye view: Rumsfeld to blame for 'breaking' the Army
• Hawks for Dissent
• West Point Graduates Against The War -- being sued threatened with suit for a trademark violation by the military academy! As if this wasn't classic nominative fair use as per Playboy Enterprises, Inc., v. Wells, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) and Century 21 Real Estate Corporation v. LendingTree, Inc. , 425 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2005)! Not to mention that the chance of confusing Graduates Against the War with a military academy seems somewhat low. As for the possible dilutive effect, if any, see nominative fair use again, not to mention the First Amendment...
• Iraq today (and yesterday): Forget the hearts and minds, worry about the corrupt cops and militias
• Domestic security: planning process years behind schedule
• But don't worry, we're ready to prosecute the reporters who tell you about it
• U. Chicago Prof. Geoffrey Stone's powerful congressional testimony on why prosecuting journalists for publishing is, well, un-American
• At least the kids are all right (back home)

Good News / Bad News

1000 days to go in the current Presidential term.

ORGWare: What Tomorrow's Campaigns Need Today

If I ever have to run a political campaign, I want one of these ORGWare things that Brit Blaser is building.

'Billboard Liberation Front' Strikes

Via Boing-boing, an account of the guerilla (theater) tactics of the "Billboard Liberation Front"

The Great American (Liberal) Novel?

The Carpetbagger Report asks an interesting question:

A long-time regular, R.M., recently raised an interesting question via email. A conservative friend recommended that he read "Atlas Shrugged," which the friend thought would help open his liberal eyes and lead him to the embrace poorly-written novels contrived plots conservative thinking.

Setting Ayn Rand aside, R.M. asked a good question: If the situation was reversed, and a liberal wanted to recommend one book to a conservative, which book should he or she pick?

Some of the more recent books that came to mind are preaching-to-the-choir kind of texts, which a) have their place; and b) when it comes to Al Franken and Molly Ivins, can be fun to read, but wouldn't necessarily be the first thing I'd recommend to a conservative or politically-neutral reader.

The point isn't to pick your favorite liberal book, or the one that has had the most impact, but rather the one that can speak to a broad audience and help present a liberal ideology in a persuasive way.

Fiction or non-fiction, recent or "classic" -- which book would you pick?

For fiction, I was thinking along the lines of Grapes of Wrath, but it's a bit dated.

For non-fiction, Simple Justice? Or is that too dated too? If so, really any decent account of the Bush administration ought to do...

The Secret Is Out -- But No One Will Listen

Bob Somerby of the The Daily Howler lets slip the secret to getting things right:

Sometimes, readers ask us how we manage to get these matters so right. Folks, our secret is known as "reading." You hold the key document up to your face. Then you say all the words to yourself.

Vain Hopes Dept.

Is there any hope at all that these poll results will constitute a spine graft for Senate Democrats?

Brownshirts Without Shame

No better than modern brownshirts: The Carpetbagger Report | That Ann Coulter, what a kidder.

After all these secret service trips to investigate high school students based on what they do for class assignments, I trust a full squad of investigators will soon be giving this kook the third-degree?

Where Was This Guy Hiding During the Elections?

So Al Gore gave a great speech. It's worth reading.

I sure would like to know why he didn't do stuff like this when he was running for President.

UPDATE: The Washington Post covered the speech, which is more than most TV networks apparently did.

Sea Change in US Politics?

Daily Kos contributor "Hunter" thinks he's spotted a sea change in inside-the-beltway political discourse, one likely to have national impacts if it really exists.

[Newsweek's Howard] Fineman was remarkably blunt in his assertions that the "ethics" and other attacks on Murtha are being orchestrated by Karl Rove -- by name -- and the White House, which intends to hit Murtha with everything "necessary". He stated directly that the White House sees everything as a political operation. He was blunt in Murtha's record and leadership position in the war, and in attributing to Murtha the behind-the-scenes voices of many top Pentagon voices who are unhappy with both the state of the war effort and with Rumsfeld's planning in the specific.

In short, he made it perfectly, bitterly clear that the White House itself sees Murtha as a tremendous threat, considers itself at war with Murtha, and that Rove -- again, by name -- intends to hit him with everything at the administration's disposal.

And without betraying any secrets of the Washington press corps, I'd have to say that Fineman, for one, met the airways today genuinely either angry or disgusted with the effort.

... There is something different in the air, the past few weeks. Murtha has managed to tap a tuning fork that the whole war sounds off of -- one I'm not sure he ever intended to find.

...

Whether or not Karl Rove survives the excesses of being Karl Rove, I have to wonder if the same crass, one-note song will play, or if the audience has changed. When the only weapon the White House is capable of using is to impugn the very patriotism and Americanness of their opponents, what happens if the reactions to that attack change?

What happens if the press decides that dissent is, after all, patriotic?

Now wouldn't that be something.

Obligatory Bob Dylan reference.

Worst President Ever?

Nice sticker. But is it true?

Nominations for Presidents even worse than GWB -- if any -- are now open.

I have come around to the view that GWB is substantially worse than Nixon. And also Jefferson. But is he worse than Andrew Johnson? Than US Grant? Andrew Johnson had some principles, but they were pretty bad ones on the whole. Grant was a great general but an unabashedly awful President. And there are surely some obscurely bad Presidents that I've neglected?

Or, I suppose, this could perhaps be no more than another example of the middle-aged propensity for the jeremiad...