Monday November 23, 2009
Monday November 23, 2009
Time to end the filibuster
Just how ridiculous has the filibuster become? Theoretically, the filibuster is unlimited debate, such that the majority can never take a vote while being stymied by the minority holding the floor during debate. The only way to end this "debate" is to have a super-majority of 60 votes. This weekend, Republicans used the filibuster to try and prevent the health care reform bill from even being debated-- the Democrats' 60 votes this weekend were simply votes to allow debate to begin. Absurd! Last week, Politico (of all places) actually ran a really smart essay on why we simply need to end this filibuster foolishness:
Both parties have historically used the filibuster, but its overuse by modern Republicans stands at outrageous proportions. Not only has the number of filibusters increased dramatically — from never more than seven a year in the 1960s to a record 137 in the last Congress — so, too, has their banality.
For example, this month the Senate unanimously passed an extension of unemployment benefits. It took the breaking of three filibusters and five weeks of debate to pass the bill while, at the same time, 200,000 Americans lost their benefits. Even pettier is the GOP’s repeated use of holds. Thomas Shannon, the president’s nominee to be ambassador to Brazil, is a career Foreign Service officer and served in the Bush administration. But that has not stopped two Republican senators from holding up his nomination, for unknown reasons...
In effect, majority rule in the Senate has been supplanted by undemocratic, supermajority rule. The filibuster has become a tool to block not just bad legislation but all legislation; it has become so endemic that it is now an institutionalized way of doing business, casting its shadow over everything the Senate does.
Solutions to the filibuster problem exist; what is lacking is political will...
Yet while Democrats rail against the GOP’s use of the filibuster, they seem wary of doing anything about it — no doubt fearful that when they are out of power, they will be unable to wield the filibuster against Republican proposals. Yet the longer they allow the GOP to thwart their agenda, the greater the likelihood that Democrats will soon find themselves in the minority.
The GOP’s continued misuse of the filibuster represents the single greatest threat to the Democratic Party’s progressive agenda and its political future. Biting the bullet on modifying its use will not be easy, but the longer Democrats empower Republicans by accepting institutionalized obstructionism as the status quo, the more likely they are to confirm the worst suspicions of their opponents and disappoint their most ardent supporters.
It's a great essay. Read the whole thing. Also, Dana Milbank, who seemed to have long ago given up on useful journalism, has a nice article pointing out the extreme nature of Republican hypocrisy on filibustering judicial nominees. Of course, hypocrisy and politics are virtually synonymous, but what the Democrats have been practicing on the issue is AA hypocrisy whereas Republicans are Major League All-Stars.
All those Senators who speak with such reverence for the founders are clearly full of it. If the founders had any intention of making the Senate a super-majoritarian institution, they sure would have done so. To permanently turn the Senate into a super-majority legislature based on a procedural rule is surely more of a subversion of the Constitution than pretty much any decision by an "activist judge." Time for the filibuster to go.
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 23 2009, 08:19:17 AM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]
Friday November 20, 2009
Totally unrelated posts
For some reason, I feel like combining the following:
1) From Matt Yglesias, a nice graph showing how the Murder rate in the US is much higher than most comparable nations:
2) For fans of the Wire only, this is terrific (and definitely not meant for workplace viewing):
Thursday November 19, 2009
Are Republicans really this nuts?
Via TPM:
The new national poll from Public Policy Polling (D) has an astonishing number about paranoia among the GOP base: Republicans do not think President Obama actually won the 2008 election -- instead, ACORN stole it...
The poll asked this question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?" The overall top-line is legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.
Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% -- an outright majority -- saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided. Among McCain voters, the breakdown is 31%-49%-20%. By comparison, independents weigh in at 72%-18%-10%, and Democrats are 86%-9%-4%.
In answer to my title, I think the answer is no. There's answers to poll questions and what people actually believe. This is a case where I think there's a real difference. I think the Republicans are registering their (misplaced) antipathy towards ACORN rather than a genuine belief that the election was stolen. I suspect if you dug down further with more questions, you'd find this to be the case. Nice poll result to embarrass Republicans, but I don't think it really tells us anything beyond confirming how problematic opinion polls can be.
In defense of Sarah Palin
No, not really. But I did find this Media Matters takedown of the sexism of Newsweek's cover story of Palin quite compelling.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don't have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek's November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo -- "How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?" -- presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, "Maria," in which nuns fret about "how" to "solve a problem like Maria," a "girl" who "climbs trees" and whose "dress has a tear."
Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin's exercise habits.
Like her or not, Palin is a former governor and vice presidential candidate. She deserves the same respect every single one of her male counterparts receives when they are featured on the cover of the magazine. I must have missed the cover of Vice President Joe Biden in short shorts or of Mitt Romney in a bathing suit.
I have to say I was a little surprised to see this on Newsweek's cover this week (which disappeared before I read it-- Alex?!), but I didn't stop to think of sexist this is until reading the above post. Good points.
What is God telling Sarah Palin to do?
Love Sally Quin's snarky take on God's "plan" for Sarah Palin:
In her new book Sarah Palin writes that one summer at Bible Camp she "put my life in my creator's hands and trust Him as I sought my life's path." For Palin, this grand divine plan was "a natural progression." She writes. And later, "I don't believe in coincidences."
Which leads me to ask:What does she believe is God's plan for her? Does she have any free will or is everything preordained. Can she see something coming and change her mind despite God's plans for her?
Did God plan for her to become Governor of Alaska. If so, did God plan for her to step down. Did God plan for her to run for Vice President? If so why did she and McCain lose?
Did God plan for her to have a child with Down's Syndrome? If so why did she consider an abortion? Did God plan for her to have a huge wardrobe? Then why did she apologize for it?
Did God plan for her to do the Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews and be humiliated by them. Did God plan for her to allow herself to be forced, against her will to do those interviews? If so then why complain?
Did God plan for her daughter Bristol to get pregnant while she was a teenager? Why was she then not thrilled. Did God plan for Bristol to get engaged and then break up, only to be left a single mother, dropping out of school?
There's plenty more, but you get the point.
H1N1
Given that I took all 3 of my kids to finally get the H1N1 vaccine yesterday, it's about time I link to this Slate story I've been meaning to. I think one of the under-reported facets of the flu story is the fact that H1N1 has basically completely crowded out the seasonal flu virus. In short, if you've got the flu, you've got H1N1. Of course, my seasonal flu vaccine is thus pretty much worthless, but I've mostly been worried about getting the boys the H1N1 vaccine as 1) they are the primary vectors I need to worry about, and 2) Alex has a reasonable probability of breakthrough seizures if he gets the flu and David has underlying respiratory issues that could make it worse.
Anyway, Marc Siegel's story in Slate is an interesting look at why there's been such shortages of the vaccine. I found the most interesting criticism to be not technical, but in health care bureaucrats being too conservative.
The slow process is compounded by the fact that our health officials believe too much in the old technology. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services decided to finish making the seasonal flu vaccine before transitioning to the new vaccine, even as evidence suggested that the new pandemic was going to crowd out the yearly flu. "It is difficult to turn production to new directions based on inertia," says Lone Simonsen, an epidemiologist and nationally recognized flu pandemic expert at George Washington University. But it is just this inertia that makes redirection in vaccine production so crucial.
Last March, as the emerging influenza flu strain took hold in Mexico, infecting thousands before taking hold in the United States, studies showed that this new flu was dominant: It was found in more than 90 percent of the flu cases in Mexico. This new crab grass taking over the lawn was predictable. Since most people (especially the young) had never been exposed to this virus before, there were few barriers to transmission.
Instead of switching immediately to the manufacture of a new pandemic vaccine, the seasonal flu vaccine was completed first. By early fall, 115 million doses of the seasonal flu vaccine were rolled out, and compliance was at an all-time high, thanks to a massive national campaign to promote compliance. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a Sept. 10 press conference that "getting vaccinated for seasonal flu right now is good advice." Accordingly, more than 60 million rolled up their sleeves and got the vaccine by October, despite the fact that there was no seasonal flu to be found. Lost in the frenzy for flu shots was the fact that the yearly flu season didn't typically peak until late January or February, while pandemics characteristically do not obey the boundaries of traditional winter flu seasons.
Meanwhile, apparently many Americans have been listening to Bill Maher and Glenn Beck rather than public health and medical professionals for their health care advice.
Wednesday November 18, 2009
KSM's trial in New York
Great post from Andrew Sullivan on why it is really important to have KSM's trial in New York. The Obama administration has definitely disappointed me in adopting too many of the Bush positions in the "war on terror," but he gets a lot of credit on this one. Sullivan:
But what an open civilian case will also do - and it's why a war criminal like John Yoo is so apoplectic - is reveal the extent to which the brutal torture of KSM was unnecessary, and led to the government's inability to prosecute him to the full extent of the law.
It will be a civic lesson to America and the world. It will show the evil of terrorism and the futility and danger of torture. It will be a way in which Cheney's torture regime can be revealed in all its grotesque excess at the same time as KSM's vile religious extremism is exposed for its murderous nihilism. That all this will take place in New York - close to where the mass murder took place - is a particularly smart touch.
This will, then, be a Nuremberg-style event - because it will pit Qaeda barbarism against the cooling, calm and resolute nature of real Western justice in the clear light of history. But it does one more critical thing. It reveals a new confidence in ourselves and the Western way of life...
When you listen to the Fox News right speak about this, they reveal amazing levels of fear. They have been truly spooked by these men with long beards and chilling eyes. They are so scared of them they are willing to drop any and all legal principles that the West has historically used with respect to mass murderers. Their fear brought them to institute torture, and to engage in mass brutality against prisoners of war in every theater of combat in a manner that will tragically taint the honor of the US military for a very long time. It led them to establish Gitmo, to create for the world a reverse symbol of the Statue of Liberty, and imprint it on the minds and in the consciences of an entire generation of human beings, whose view of America will never be the same.
I think Sullivan gets that quite right-- Fox News Republicans are simply fearful (dare I say cowards?). On a more practical level, Dahlia Lithwick simply eviscerates all the arguments for the silly and scared people who think this is a bad idea.
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 18 2009, 12:03:40 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]
Tuesday November 17, 2009
Quick Hits
1) Nice little list from Newsweek of "12 comics who aren't funny." I'm definitely in agreement. Interestingly, I actually saw Carrot Top in person-- the only stand-up I've ever seen. Not funny.
2) Why Sarah Palin will not be president-- short version: Sarah Palin = Dan Quayle.
3) Really love this one-- why the Pledge of Allegiance is, in fact, fundamentally un-American. Read it.
Best TV of the 00's
As ABC's ad campaign was argued, "TV is good." Many critics (and I agree) argue that we are in a golden age of television and that much of the smartest writing in entertainment is going on in modern television. The Onion AV club (the serious part of the Onion) put together this nice list of the top 30 shows of the 00's. I'm certainly a big fan of the top 3 choices (I'd question their credibility if The Wire was not #1). Interesting list and will certainly affect what shows make it into my DVD queue. I really need to get around to Mad Men one of these days.
Who likes Sarah Palin?
So, Sarah Palin has been all over the news and blogosphere with the roll-out of her new book, Going Rogue-- sure to be intellectually stimulating reading. Over at TNR, Michelle Cottle had a nice gender-based explanation on Palin's support:
Scanning the weekend chit-chatter about the ex-gov, I noticed that the Note pulled this observation from PBS's Gwenn Ifill:
"You cannot underestimate the degree that women will be drawn to her story."
Maybe. But, as last year's polls showed, it's not as though chicks much like Palin...
Quite the contrary: Palin (as I've noted before) is a national political phenom in large part because she is a certain type of man's fantasy of a go-getter gal: Sassy, pretty, and slightly flirtatious, with a professed love of firearms and sports and a distaste for those icky ol' traditional chick issues that feminists so tiresomely gripe about. (You know, reproductive rights, child care, family leave, comprehensive health care, equal pay, etc.)
I've actually been running models of support for Sarah Palin with the 2008 NES data. Short version: no gender-based differences at all in liking for Palin-- on a 0-100 scale, males average 51.54, females 51.15. Remarkably similar and nowhere near statistical significance. Among Democrats and Independents, there are no gender differences in Palin support. As much as I like Cottle's theory, though, it seems to be wrong. Among Republicans, men rate Palin about 69, significantly lower than where Republican women put her at 73. In an OLS model of Palin support, factors which increase support for Palin at a statistically significant level are: being married, being from the South, being white, having less education, being more religious, and, of course, being Republican.
How to lie with statistics
That's the title of one of my favorite books. This graph brilliantly illustrates the concept from the Atlantic on-line:
The lesson here is not that Pitchfork's editors should get behind "Drill, baby, drill." The lesson is that US oil production has fallen steadily for 40 years, and Rolling Stone's editors are absurdly biased toward songs written between 1965 and 1980.
(Thanks to Big Steve for this one)
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 17 2009, 03:38:01 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]
Mammograms-- who needs them?
So, a couple of weeks ago I meant to blog about Mammograms in response to this recent study:
Last month, Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, told The New York Times that the medical profession had exaggerated the benefits of cancer screening, and that if a woman refused mammography, “I would not think badly of her, but I would like her to get it.”...
But the statement also said mammography can “miss cancers that need treatment, and in some cases finds disease that does not need treatment.” In other words, the test may lead to some women being treated, and being exposed to serious side effects, for cancers that would not have killed them. Some researchers estimate that as many as one-third of cancers picked up by screening would not be fatal even if left untreated. But right now, nobody knows which ones.
Interesting, but the articles is from a few weeks ago and I never did anything. However, now we have news that a federal panel is actual recommending that most women in their 40's no longer have routine mammograms:
Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.
"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives," said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."
Obviously, for an announcement like this, there's been evidence for years that mammograms are not quite the magic bullet they are often portrayed to be. Clearly, they are important and play a major role in preventing breast cancer, but it seems that this role should be more targeted than current use. Alas, my mom was well aware of these studies questioning the efficacy of mammograms. Unfortunately, she drew the conclusion that all such regular testing, e.g., pap smears, was unnecessary. When she told me she might have uterine cancer and I asked about regular gynecological testing (which she did not have) she specifically mentioned the evidence for the limits of mammograms. Okay, then, I'm not sure what my broad conclusion should be here. I think it is good that doctors realize the limits of their screening tests and apply them more appropriately, but I hope too many people don't take these recommendations too far and ignore needed and effective medical tests.
Monday November 16, 2009
Fuel economy vs. horsepower
I read something about this years ago and always find reason to talk about it in my public policy class, but haven't actually been able to find good data on this, so I was very happy to see this post from Yglesias:
There are two things you can do with a more efficient automobile engine. One is build a vehicle that gets more miles per gallon. The other is build a vehicle that moves more pounds of steel. And Christopher Knittle points out that we’ve largely been doing the latter:
From 1980 to 2004 the fuel economy of U.S. vehicles has remained stagnant despite apparent technological advances. The average fuel economy of the U.S. new passenger automobile fleet increased by less than 6.5 percent, while the average horsepower of new passenger cars increased by 80 percent, and their average curb weight increased by 12 percent. For light duty trucks, average horsepower has increased by 99 percent and average weight increased by 26 percent over this period. But there’s more to this story: in 1980, light truck sales were roughly 20 percent of total passenger vehicles sales — in 2004, they were over 51 percent.
In Automobiles on Steroids: Product Attribute Trade-Offs and Technological Progress in the Automobile Sector (NBER Working Paper No. 15162), Christopher Knittel analyzes the technological progress that has occurred since 1980 and the trade-offs that manufacturers and consumers face when choosing between fuel economy, weight, and engine power characteristics. His results suggest that if weight, horsepower, and torque were held at their 1980 levels, fuel economy for both passenger cars and light trucks could have increased by nearly 50 percent from 1980 to 2006. Instead, fuel economy actually increased by only 15 percent.
Of course, this is what consumers wanted and that's what they got. Better policies, whether gas taxes or emissions standards would have seen that improvement in efficiency go towards better mileage. Speaking of inefficiency, most cars simply have way more power than they need now, and are therefore quite inefficient in the use of fuel. Maybe its because my first car was a K-Car, but I'm plenty happy with the 116 horses in my Toyota Corolla and rarely feel that I need more. Of course I do enjoy those extra horses I've experienced in others' cars, but mostly I'm happy with my great mpg. I also think the amount of people pouring money down the drain on full-sized trucks is ridiculous. We've got neighbors with a Ford F-250 or 350 and when that thing idles in the driveway it sounds like a UPS truck, but I've never seen them haul anything other than their two kids. I would say, to each his own, but all of us pay the externalities of them having such an amazingly inefficient vehicle for their needs.
They love me in Spain
If you can read Spanish and want a clearer image, it's here.
| Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Links | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One of the dumber arguments against trying KSM in New York is that somehow terrorists are going to learn all of our top secret methods (who knew the U.S. uses waterboarding?). The truth is federal judges routinely bend over backwards to protect any information the government deems secret. Glenn Greenwald strenuously makes the argument here (actually, I don't think there's any arguments Greenwald doesn't make strenuously):
Next totally false conservative argument?
Posted by shgreene ( Nov 23 2009, 03:55:00 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [0]