Redistricting is referendum proof

A couple months back my fellow blogger Mako and I had a few posts back and forth about appropriations in the item pricing law. As I mentioned then I really don't care about the item pricing law but I thought it was a dangerous precedent to make controversial bills voter proof. By using appropriations, Legislatures are gaming the system and limiting the power of the people.

Well they are at it again. This time legislatures have made the redrawing of legislative and Congressional lines referendum proof. This means that even if a majority of Michiganders thought the new lines were just political gerrymandering, we are powerless to change it.

While it may be too little too late for some of this years legislation State Representative Jim Townsend has proposed an amendment to the states constitution that would bar this practice while keeping in tact the safe guards that protect actually budget bills from potentially damaging referendums.

Personally I would be shocked if this legislation goes anywhere since legislators love any power they can get their hands on and this form of exploiting our system is far to enticing for politicians to relinquish.

Job-killers, or convenient rhetoric?

My colleague Glenn Gogoleski has an unapologetic history a defending corporate interests. Luckily for corporate America they have plenty of money to defend themselves. Mr. Gogoleski's recent surge in posting targets the injustice of the justice system from a corporate standpoint. This includes a case brought by the NLRB against Boeing, a case about work place chairs, and a case against Wal-Mart.

In the case of the NLRB versus Boeing Mr. Gogoleski states that this a "legal overstep by the NLRB". In the case of the chairs for workers in California Mr. Gogoleski goes to the standard scare tactic of "(Californians) will now be paying substantially more for retail goods". In the case of the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Mr. Gogoleski goes all in with conservative rhetoric calling it "another frivolous, job killing class action lawsuit".

According to a US courts government web site the purpose of the American court system is to apply and interpret laws. Contrary to what Glenn would have you believe these are all valid questions regarding the interpretation of laws. Is it illegal to threaten unions? Yes. Did Boeing threaten their union? Maybe. Maybe not. Is there a law on the books regarding chairs for employees in California? Yes. Are corporations following the law? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it against the law to treat women different in the workplace? Yes. Did Wal-Mart, as a corporation, have a policy of treating women unfairly? No, according to the Supreme Court. Did certain Wal-Mart stores have unfair labor practices regarding women? Maybe. Maybe not. Future litigation will probably answer that question.

Luckily here in the greatest country on earth we have a justice system to help settle disputes instead of having to rely on Mr. Gogoleski's opinion of what does and what does not qualify as a valid court case. Does Glenn believe all of these cases represent "overreaching government" or are "frivolous"? His posts and subsequent comments would suggest he does. Does that make it true? Maybe. Maybe not. I would guess that Glenn is not particularly concerned about government overreach in the case of taxing pensions or emergency financial managers. Those disputes will also be decided by a court. How convenient to claim government overreach when it suits you and act like you know better than the judges and juries that heard the arguments and interpreted the laws.

Glenn also loves to point out how much it costs the companies involved in lawsuits as though that should prohibit legal action against a company. If a company breaks the law should it be precluded from lawsuits simply because that might increase the cost of products to customers? Trial lawyers are a free market entity not a government operation. Suing a company like Wal-Mart is not free. If you are going to take on a company of this size you better have a hefty sum of money handy and be fairly certain you can win. Lawyers are businessman. The average Lawyer Salary in 2006 was just over $100,000 (corporate lawyers have the highest average salaries btw). They don't make that kind of money by taking on every case that walks through their door.

Does that mean that every case is valid? No. But in the free market there is a cost in failing to make your case. I hope Glenn as a "Libertarian-leaning, capitalist-loving conservative" isn't suggesting that the government add in more laws and regulations to stop frivolous lawsuits.

Glenn is very excited about his new line of posts and considers these a "first in a series" but they will all tell the same story of how Glenn doesn't like lawsuits against companies. They will have little to nothing to do with the actual validity of the cases. They will instead focus on the unsupported opinions of Glenn and how much Americans and corporations suffer from being held accountable.

Eliminating ads targeting kids won't cure obesity

The government has decided to ask junk food marketers not to advertise to kids. I'm afraid this proposal misses the real issue. Do advertisements entice kids into buying things they don't need and aren't good for them? Yes. But we are legislating the symptom here not the cause.

By in large young kids do not buy their own food. Parents buy it for them. This proposal plays right into our "take no responsibility" culture. How dare we expect a parent to say no when a child asks for junk food. Why should parents be expected to parent when they can just blame someone else for their kid being fat.

The same is true of the school lunch program. Since when did our primary objective become making students happy? I doubt very highly that if given a choice the majority of school age kids would rank going to school as their top choice for how to spend their time. I fail to understand why food is the area where we stop worrying about what is best for kids and start focusing on providing things that kids like.

Obviously cost plays a part in shaping the school menu but in a place of learning, where we are teaching our kids to make good choices, providing unhealthy food just to save a few bucks sends the wrong message. Additionally, with the high cost of health care and the ever increasing numbers of obese kids, the long term costs far outweigh the short term savings.

If we are truly concerned about obesity in school age children then we should use the government's power to fix the problem not the symptom. If you take the time to educate a child early and often on the value of good nutrition the rate of obesity goes down. Studies also show that parent involvement increases the value of this education.

A better plan would be to tax the junk foods rather than legislate advertisements. Taxing these products should lead to lower consumption rates while providing a funding source for the very education that will lower obesity in our kids and subsequently, in society.

Unfortunately the world is full of choices and providing kids with the critical thinking skills necessary to make the right choices even when parents aren't around is the best thing we can do to prepare our kids for the real world. Acting like the bad things don't exist may make parents feel better but in the end, obfuscating reality, does more harm than good.

"They Keep Acting As If It's Always 1980"

Another old-school Republican* who- free from the confines of politics- acknowledges that the current GOP economic plan is nonsensical:

The most important thing to understand is that certain policies such as the Reagan tax cut in 1981 - which I supported and continue to support - were the right thing to do at that time under those economic conditions. (But) Republicans keep acting as if it's always 1980 with exactly those particular problems and they simply refuse to acknowledge that anything has changed in the last thirty years and I think the basic problem with the economy today is a lack of aggregate demand and I just don't see any way of increasing that through the sorts of tax policies that (current Republican presidential candidates) are talking about.

That was the analysis of Bruce Bartlett, Fmr. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary under George H.W. Bush (amongst other credentials), as stated on last night's Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.

Well said, sir.


* see also Paul O'Neill and David Stockman.

Mavs Win!

I really don't care about who won the NBA championship other than I'm glad that it was not Lebron James. I guess that makes me a LBJ hater so these comments below, that James made yesterday, to some small extent are directed at me.

"All the people that were rooting on me to fail, at the end of the day they have to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before they woke up today. They have the same personal problems they had today. I'm going to continue to live the way I want to live and continue to do the things that I want to do with me and my family and be happy with that. So they can get a few days or a few months or whatever the case may be on being happy about not only myself, but the Miami Heat not accomplishing their goal. But they got to get back to the real world at some point."

The problem I have is that Lebron wants it both ways. You don't get to reap the rewards of having your own ESPN special to announce, like some attention starved high school kid, what NBA team you are going to play for and then when you get there talk about how many championships you are going to win, and then turn around and lament the number of people to root for you to fail.

You made yourself the villain so you don't get to act like the victim now. I assume at some point James will win a championship and if he does I bet one of the first things he talks about is how he is vindicated and that all the people who didn't believe in him can shove it. If he really wanted to create fans out of those of us who like to see him fail he would take the high road and say nothing about those who take joy in his pain. Unfortunately he won't recognize his own hypocrisy and will continue to think he should be allowed to have his cake and eat it too.

Education is the solution, not the problem

In the past when I have posted about Education some commenters have taken the opportunity to assert that "money is not the answer" with regards to how to improve our education system. I assume this position to be based more on the interest in keeping taxes low than a fully researched opinion since the data tends to show a small positive correlation between education spending and test scores. Additionally if money didn't matter in education then the test prep industry wouldn't be a $4 billion a year industry and parents would send their kids to Community College instead of MIT. The truth is that like most things you get what you pay for. We want our kids to get a good education to give them the best chance of being successful and some of the most expensive colleges have the best ROI. A more appropriate statement would be that money isn't the ONLY answer.

One thing that I find particularly odd about the recent obsession over teachers pay by the right is just how at odds this is with the typical Republican ideology. When a CEO receives massive compensation the argument is that you have to pay top dollar to get the best people. The same is true of teachers. This is a highly educated workforce specifically trained to be educators. As with a CEO the free market idea should be that a teachers pay should reflect his or her value to the corporation (the school) i.e. the ability to replace the position without a drop in production.

A New York Times report on what makes a good teacher suggests that a teachers ability shows a high correlation to student achievement. It also shows that these are skills that can be taught. Obviously, as with all skills, there are a certain set of people that will excel and a certain set that will fail. The point being that you can't just turn any bum into a great teacher but if you hope to make a good teacher it will require a good education. Given that private schools compensate their teachers at a fairly equivalent rate to public schools yet tend to require less education the free market would suggest that the current pay is not out of line as the rhetoric might suggest.

It then follows that if pay rates are not out of line the changes we should be pushing for are not monitary but improvement based. Studies conclude that having a highly trained workforce, good facilities, smaller class sizes and high parental involvement as the necessary ingredients to improved student achievement. reducing money for schools will have a negative impact on three out of the four items necessary to improving proformance.

Republicans also tend to push for the public sector to act more like the private sector. Any businessman will tell you that the goal of spending money should be to get the best return on your investment. Well, low educated couples are four times as likely to get a divorce as high educated couples. Increasing the graduation rate and subsequent college attendance rates by 5% could save as much as $8 billion a year for the American tax payer. The higher the education level of a woman the less likely she will be to have an abortion. The more educated you are the less likely you will be to smoke cigarettes which costs American taxpayers $100 billion a year. The higher your education level the lower your chances are of being Obese which costs the American tax payer over $36 billion a year. Drug use also drops as education increases. What other area of government spending has such a huge bang for your buck?

Instead of attacking teachers pay and security with shadow legislation we as a society would be better served to look for solutions that improve the core areas of education which lead to better results. Merit Pay, Vouchers, and Deficit reduction are the side show in the education circus. Teacher education, good facilities, limited class sizes and parent participation get real results. If only our elected officials could focus on good policy instead of convenient politics.

Doing The Right Thing? Does Not Compute.

A few observations from last night's Rachel Maddow Show:

Ms. Maddow was discussing the Anthony Weiner scandal with Chris Hayes and they agreed that GOP politicians who are calling on Rep. Weiner to resign are really nothing more than opportunists. Mr. Hayes says:

The cheapest way to score a "family values point" is... to parachute in with some censorious statement about someone else's problem... it doesn't cost anything. You don't actually have to do anything.

I agree (to the extent that they have not felt the need to urge David Vitter et al to resign in the past). Ms. Maddow also agrees. Rachel says:

I feel like I understand why Republicans are calling for Anthony Weiner's resignation... it's, as you say, opportunism (but) what is going on with the 9 or 10 Democrats now who are also calling on Anthony Weiner to resign?

Uhhh... maybe because it's the right thing to do? (And, of course, it was/is the right thing for David Vitter to have done/do too). They absolutely brought embarassment to the institution of the United States congress; I say that fully aware that certain people (*cough* Bachmann!) arguably bring shame every time they open their cheese-holes.

I guess that brings me to my own counterpoint. If those previous paragraphs were brought to you by Derek Anderson Fan... perhaps these next few paragraphs might be considered to be authored by my alter ego, Derek Jeter Hater.

Earlier in the segment - the pretext if you will - was a video of GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum saying:

If I had done what Congressman Weiner had done, I'd be worried about my family and getting my life back together... I would've stepped down and done what's best for the people that I love.

Now, who is he to say what is best for Anthony Weiner's family? Why is it everyone assumes that stepping down is necessarily a positive? Who looks at a family situation and says "you know what would improve this situation? Unemployment!" Brilliant idea!!

Now, admittedly, I am probably being somewhat silly with the unemployment concern - but I am absolutely serious as to my questioning as to why it is universally assumed that resignation helps save families/marriages? Rep. Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, who has long been involved in Democratic politics, have been married less than a year. Weiner has been a US Congressman since 1999. Seemingly, they have only known each other in essentially their current roles - meaning there is no 'Reset' button in this relationship where they can go back to a simpler time when they were college sweethearts, before Anthony was corrupted by the allure of power, notoriety, and/or internet porn.

They are what they are. Only they know what is best for their relationship. If Huma wants him to resign - he should probably resign- but he sure as shit should not resign because a Bible thumping douchebag like Rick Santorum thinks it's best. Fuck him.

New International Trade Crossing support confusing

Back when it was called the Detroit River International Crossing supported by Governor Granholm all of the Republicans in the State Senate were against it and all but one Democrat was for it.

Now that Governor Snyder supports it Republicans are finding it much more palatable. Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville went from being against the project to submitting the bills for it. In September of 2007, before the major economic melt down, Richardville said "Despite the state's current budget problems, MDOT" is pushing forward with "building an unnecessary bridge".

At the time he also stated that "MDOT insists on moving forward with plans to build a bridge on a massively polluted site". I can not find any information suggesting that the site for the bridge has changed since Richardville's original objections. If that is the case and the site is still the same I'm not sure why his objection to the site no longer exist.

Richardville's new found support for the project seems to be focused around some maneuvering that Governor Snyder has done which basically eliminates that tax burden on Michigan residents. Unfortunately this offer was on the table about a year ago or a full 6 months before Richadville voted against the then DRIC.

Adding to the confusion is the statements from Governor Snyder on how important this is to Michigan's trade and jobs. If this is true now then it was also true when Richardville was against this "unnecessary bridge". Canada apparently thinks it has so much value that they are willing to spend millions, and perhaps billions, of their own money as well as chip in Michigan's $550 million.

The main opponents to this bridge, not surprisingly, are the owners of the Ambassador Bridge. They put together a report showing how a new bridge will lose millions a dollars a year. Their President of operations, Dan Stamper, also claims that traffic across the bridge has been decreasing for the past decade so there is no need for a new bridge yet his company has spent millions on efforts to expand their own bridge.

Unfortunately the Republican objections to the plan appear more tied the $553,665 in campaign contributions that they received from the owners of the Ambassador Bridge than anything else. After all the bridge will create jobs, cost Michigan tax payers nothing and create competition. I thought those were the ideas that got Republicans elected in November.

At least in this case Governor Snyder has put the good of the state ahead of his re-election. If only every politician were so inclined.

Why Even Have FoxTrax?

Let me start by catching up the uninitiated as to what I am talking about in that post title.

FoxSports Detroit and I would assume all affiliates of the 29 other MLB teams - or, rather, all those with a contract with FoxSports use a technology called FoxTrax to show whether a (disputed) pitch was a ball or a strike (i.e. did the ump get it right?)

It's not my favorite technology since it often shows pitches that I believe were "on the black" to be off the plate. I just accept that I would be more of a pitchers umpire because I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt considering all the drift to hitter-friendly conditions in the past generation (if you know baseball, you know the list: mound height, smaller ballparks, smaller strikezone, 'roided up players, juiced ball?, etc).

Okay, now that my readers are all hopefully caught up - here is the problem I have:

Over the weekend Detroit-ChiSox series, there was a pitch that White Sox DH/1B Adam Dunn took for a called strike three. A replay was shown and Tigers play-by-play broadcaster, Mario Impemba, audibly gasped and said "that was nowhere near the strike zone!" Later in the game when Adam Dunn came to the plate, Impemba again claimed Dunn was "called out earlier today on a pitch that clearly out of the strike zone.".

With that said...it should be a surprise to you, dear reader, that when FoxSports showed a replay using FoxTrax, it indicated the pitch was a strike!! Now, why would you invest in this technology if you clearly do not take it seriously and apparently don't expect your viewing audience to trust it? It makes no sense!

Moreover, I am curious about how the technology actually works? It is just a shmuck in the production truck just eyeballing an approximate square? That could sound like an inexact technology that would produce errors except that is how the First & 10 lines are generated on football broadcasts... and how often are those actually wrong? Pretty much never!

Also, I wanted to compare this technology to what they use for tennis tournaments these days. They have a replay system which routinely zooms in to show a ball in or out by mere millimeters and I have never, ever heard anyone suggest that the technology got it wrong. So I guess the analagous situation would be that Mario (& Rod Allen) were calling a tennis match and having replay show a ball was on the line but they actually insisted the ball was out by a foot!

All right, if I have not made myself clear, consider me on the side of technology. Mario Impemba got the call wrong. The replay indicated he was wrong. He was too stubborn to acknowledge it. The reason you have FoxTrax is because announcers like Mario Impemba don't know a strike when they see one!

Palin 2012

As a Democrat I'm very excited about the continued obsession with Sarah Palin and her potential run for President. Nothing boosts the Democratic brand more than having people like Palin as the spokes people for the Republican party. Unfortunately Palin only has a 22% favorability rating which is as low as George W. Bush ever sank. At least Bush actually did something for people to like or dislike. Palin might as well have been a community organizer for the past few years for as much as she has accomplished.

In what I assume to be an effort to improve her brand Palin is taking a "vacation" across America using money donated to SarahPAC and made her latest gaffe of butchering the history of Paul Revere.

Personally I really don't care what Sarah Palin does or does not know about American history. There is plenty of quotes to suggest that she might not be the smartest candidate for president that this country has every seen. The problem I have is that she defended her ignorance and the blamed a gotcha question. This is a tried and true response for Palin when she missteps on questions. Since her supporters have backed this defense in the past why not try it again. But maybe she has a point. Who among us would so readily be able to answer such a loaded question as the one posed to Palin.

"What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"

Clearly the person asking this question was planted by the liberal media just looking for a way to make Palin look silly. If we don't blame someone else for Palin's gaffes then she just becomes another citizen who is completely unqualified to be President and she is just too important to the Democratic party to let that happen.

O'Reilly setting the table for 2012

Bill O'Reilly is a smart guy who prefers conservative values. Given this he tends to support Republican candidates in elections. It should then come as no surprise that in an effort to exploit the bias of his viewers he would use the tried and true fallacy of media bias to tip the scales in favor of "his" guys.

On his show from June 1st O'Reilly quotes from a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) a "nonpartisan" organization that just happens to get 86% of it's funding from conservative leaning sources. The study indicates that in the 2008 election cycle, ABC, NBC, and particularly CBS present more favorable views of Obama than McCain. Based on this study O'Reilly concluded that "(the coverage) was all favorable to Obama" and "it just wasn't fair the last time around, Barack Obama got kid gloves treatment."

Void of the fact that this same study also points out that not only is Fox News, which O'Reilly happens to work for, not fair and balanced on this topic, they actually show their own bias by giving more favorable views on McCain than Obama.

The beauty is that by putting this out there now in reference to the 2012 elections O'Reilly has already set the table to claim bias on anything he disagrees with over the next year and a half relating the coverage of the presidential candidates.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that O'Reilly is a good judge of bias. On this same program he claims that his staff has more liberals than conservatives. This may be true but it also could be true that O'Reilly believes he falls in the middle of the political spectrum and therefore anyone left of him is liberal. This reminds me of a George Carlin bit that one of my colleagues often quotes where he says “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” Just because politically you passed Bill O'Reilly that is not proof that you are in fact a maniac.

The other unfortunate and telling issue I take with O'Reilly's definitive statements about how Obama was treated by the media is the fact the this same organization also put out another study titled: MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO) Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain. (take note of the bias in the title from this "nonpartisan" organization). This study shows the exact opposite results of the study that O'Reilly quotes. Additionally this study shows that Fox News was the worst offender of "bashing" Obama surpassing the bias that CBS showed that prompted O'Reilly to say "I am concerned as an American, that the three network news nightly broadcasts are in the tank for the Democratic candidate."

Ironically O'Reilly is using "gotcha journalism" here on his guest Diane Sawyer since she wasn't given a heads up on this topic to be able to defend her network against these accusations.

O'Reilly would have more credibility if he didn't exhibit such blatant bias when calling out someone else for showing bias.

The fight over bias may never end because there is no statistical measure that will come remotely close to settling the issue and the easiest way to discredit those whom you disagree with is to make a claim that is impossible to prove. As I said before, O'Reilly is a smart guy and you can bet he knows exactly what he is doing in continuing to represent bias as an important topic of political conversation instead of the diversionary tactic that it is.