Texas
 

Right. How you going to find a non-partisan commission with that much power? Even the 9/11 commission, which should have been non-partisan as anything, was torn into camps.

Dude! I didn't think you had a sense of humor, but this is pretty funny. Good job.

Texas
 

The Governator just tried to pass a proposition in California whereby the drawing of the district lines would be taken away from the legislature and given to a panel of retired judges. A system that is used in a few states. Iowa has such a system and three of its five congressional seats were competitive last last election. California, out of 52 seats, did not have any that were competitive. In fact, of its forty state senate seats, eighty assembly seats, and fifty congressional seats, not one changed party hands in the last election.

The Unions spent twenty five million dollars to defeat the Governators proposition. That is reason 116 that I hate Unions.

Texas
 

Thank you. Note that I only try to add a little humor when it makes a point.

Texas
 

And in Texas it would be the guns lobby and business lobby that would kill it.

The competitiveness piece is interesting - anything that increases competitiveness should also increase responsiveness.

But, it's a good idea, and would at least put a brake on some of the partisanship. I am not, of course, under the impression that it would be a fully "non-partisan" approach or that it would eliminate partisanship.

Texas
 

If you could create a whole new country how would you set up the tax burden?

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Wrong. If Lieberman were really a Republican, this would only be the first step, to be followed by not providing funding for any of the programs and then holding up the failure of the programs to find a cure as an example of governmental waste. Additionally, there must be threats to kill the entire NIH if any of its studies tend to show any link between a disease and any pollutant or use of a product. Money will instead go to the National Academy of Sciences specifically earmarked to fund a multi-year study to prove that intelligent design is in fact correct. Upon the completion of this study, the NAS will also be disbanded.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Do you agree with the liberal press that bringing in industry to comment on proposed environmental rules is wrong?

How do you propose to 1) tighten environmental rules on US based manufacturers and then 2) keep manufacturing jobs at $20/hour from going to the 3rd world at 1$/hour.

Do you even believe any of your shit?

Texas
 

That would depend on it economy, resources, history, and many other factors - can you tell me a little more about your imaginary country?

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

True, but when I posted it was not yet 11:30 on a Friday evening before a long holiday weekend. Look for such an announcement on Dec. 23, to be published in the Summary of the Annals of the Congressional Quarterly Review of Various House Committees Regarding the Budget, probably on the last page written in mirror-image ancient Aramaic (the language of Jesus Christ).

ABC NEWS POLL. Iraqis Optimistic about their future.


Dec. 12, 2005 — Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. But views of the country's situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups — a study in contrasts between increasingly disaffected Sunni areas and vastly more positive Shiite and Kurdish provinces.

An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

Surprisingly, given the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.
Nonetheless, nationally, security is seen as the most pressing problem by far; 57 percent identify it as the country's top priority. Economic improvements are helping the public mood.

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

Life In Iraq: Percent Saying Good

In Your Life 70%
For Country 44%

There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country.

Interest in politics has soared.

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader.")

Whatever the current problems, 69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year — a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there. However, in a sign of the many challenges ahead, this optimism is far lower in Sunni Arab-dominated provinces, where just 35 percent are optimistic about the country's future.


Negatives

Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.

The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.

There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.

Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).

This survey was sponsored by ABC News with partners Time, the BBC, the Japanese network NHK and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, with fieldwork by Oxford Research International. It consists of in-person interviews with a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis from early October through mid-November.

There were limitations on questions in the survey because of security concerns; given the sectarian violence, Iraqis were not asked their religious doctrine, Sunni or Shiite. Instead this analysis looks at Sunni-dominated, Shia-dominated, mixed and Kurdish regions, using previous data to categorize provinces.

Sunni Arabs, the favored group under Saddam Hussein, lost their status with his overthrow and clearly resent it. In contrast Shiites, the larger group, are embracing their newfound political clout despite the terrorism that largely has targeted them. Kurds in the North (who are Sunnis, but attitudinally far different from Sunni Arabs), the strongest supporters of the United States by far, are the most positive Iraqi group, by dint of the greater autonomy they've long sought.

People in mixed areas of the country, notably the population center, Baghdad, tend to view conditions much more favorably than those in Sunni Arab areas, and generally more in line with views in the mainly Shiite South.

Majorities in Shiite and Sunni Arab areas do share some views, such as discontent with the presence of U.S. forces and — perhaps crucially for Iraq's future — a desire to keep the country unified. But the degree differs sharply — for example, 88 percent of those in Sunni areas want a unified Iraq, compared with 56 percent in Shiite provinces. And on other matters, including fundamental political issues, Sunni/Shiite area views more directly conflict.

Confidence in this week's elections is far lower in Sunni Arab areas — 48 percent, compared with more than 80 percent in other groups — but, given Sunnis' broad disaffection, that could be worse. More threatening is that just 27 percent in Sunni areas approve of the constitution, compared to more than eight in 10 Iraqis in the rest of the country, Shiite, Kurdish and mixed areas alike.



Such gaps between these groups seem to represent Iraq's greatest challenge. On issue after issue, from personal satisfaction to security to political views, people in Sunni areas — about one in four Iraqis — express vastly more negative views than their Shiite- or Kurdish-area counterparts.

Just 11 percent of people in predominantly Sunni-Arab provinces, for example, feel safe in their own neighborhoods, compared with eight in 10 Iraqis in other areas. People in mainly Sunni-Arab areas are far less confident in the Iraqi government, army or police. They're half as likely as those in mainly Shiite provinces to say their own lives are going well and half as likely to expect things to improve in the next year. While 53 percent of people in predominantly Shiite areas say the country as a whole is doing well, a mere 9 percent of those in mostly Sunni provinces agree.



Growing Caps

Rather than moving toward healing, the gaps between views in Sunni areas versus the rest of Iraq have widened sharply since early 2004, with attitudes worsening in Sunni areas while improving elsewhere. While Iraqis in Shiite, mixed and Kurdish provinces all rate the security situation, their job opportunities, and their family's protection from crime more positively than they did 20 months ago, those in Sunni provinces have grown decidedly more negative.

Similarly, while Iraqis' positive ratings of their lives overall look stable (71 percent today versus 70 percent in 2004), beneath those overall numbers is a 21-point improvement in Shiite areas — and a 26-point decline in the outlook in Sunni provinces.

The Sunni/Shiite gap has also grown on measures of confidence in key Iraqi institutions. While people in mainly Shiite provinces are 22 points more likely to have faith in the Iraqi army than they were in 2004, in mainly Sunni areas confidence has fallen by 13 points; a 15-point gap has now grown to 50. The divide in views of police similarly has increased by 23 points.

As noted, both Sunni and Shiite communities oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces, but views on the subject in Shiite areas have held steady over the past year and a half, while support for coalition forces in Sunni areas has gone from minimal, 24 percent, to near zero, 4 percent.



Anbar

Attitudes in Anbar — a Sunni Arab-dominated province that's been a center of anti-coalition sentiment — are even more extreme than views in other predominately Sunni areas. (Anbar includes Fallujah and the provincial capital, Ramadi.)

Already lower than in non-Sunni areas, confidence in national institutions craters in Anbar: Only three in 10 of those in Anbar have confidence in the police, a scant one in 10 expresses confidence in the new Iraqi army and a mere 4 percent approve of the Iraqi government's performance.

The United States fairs even more poorly in Anbar, where a solitary 1 percent say the U.S.-led invasion was a good thing for Iraq, and not a single respondent expresses confidence in the U.S. and U.K. occupation forces.

While last year's survey identified strong anti-American sentiment in Anbar, the unsettled security situation may help drive the low ratings of Iraqi institutions (only religious leaders are more highly rated in Anbar than elsewhere). Nearly half in Anbar call instability their biggest problem — 17 points more than in other, already on-edge, Sunni areas — and just 13 percent say their local security situation is good. Only 28 percent expect security to improve.

The political outlook, however, could improve. Nearly six in 10 Anbar residents have confidence that the elections will lead to a stable government. They're also more likely than other Sunnis to be interested in politics and to talk politics with others (more than eight in 10 in Anbar say they do both). But only two in 10 Anbar residents approve of the newly minted constitution.


Local Conditions

Across Iraq, most local conditions are rated positively — and more so than in early 2004. This survey finds 10- to 13-point gains in ratings of local crime protection, security and medical care, as well as in the still-problematic areas of electric supply and jobs. (Even including the substantial number of self-employed workers, Iraqis are only about half as likely as Americans to hold jobs.)


Expectations for improvement in local conditions are all high — in the mid-70s — and similar to their levels in early '04.

Still, there clearly is room for improvement in local conditions. Many of the ratings are predominantly "good" rather than "very good" (freedom of speech, after the repression of the Saddam years, is one notable exception; schools are another.) On as basic an element as the supply of clean water, for example, just 19 percent say theirs is very good, and on electrical supply it's just 11 percent.


While most of these ratings have improved since February 2004, fewer Iraqis now say these conditions are better than they were before the war. That could reflect both dimmer recollection and an unwillingness to give the war credit for positive change. The measure above, rating conditions without relying on recollection, is the more reliable one.



Fuel, Power, Reconstruction

Electricity, taken for granted in the United States, is a continued sore point. Fifty-four percent say it's bad in their area, although that's down from 64 percent last year. More than half of Iraqis (again 54 percent) have electricity for no more than eight hours a day. Just 5 percent have it around the clock.

Ironically for an oil-rich nation, fuel supply also is a persistent problem. Among Iraqis who drive, seven in 10 say they encounter fuel lines. Just under half say they say they wait for hours; a quarter, for days.

Two-thirds of Iraqis also report waiting lines for another necessity, heating or cooking fuel. Four in 10 say they wait for hours; just under three in 10, for days.

And despite the billions spent, reconstruction does not win broad accolades. Just 18 percent of Iraqis say postwar reconstruction efforts in their area have been "very effective." Instead 52 percent say such efforts have been ineffective or, while needed, have not occurred at all.

Few — just 6 percent — credit the United States with the main role in reconstruction. More say it's the Iraqi people (12 percent) or the Iraqi government (9 percent), but 37 percent say it's "no one."


Security

As noted, 63 percent feel very safe in their own neighborhood, up sharply from an Oxford poll in June 2004. But again Sunni- and Shia-area differences are profound. Eighty percent of people in Shiite areas feel safe in their neighborhood; that dives to 11 percent in predominantly Sunni provinces.

With 57 percent giving it top national priority, security dwarfs other concerns. (Next, cited by 10 percent, is getting the United States out of Iraq; 9 percent say it's rebuilding infrastructure, with other options in lower single digits.) In another example of the majority's positive outlook, 70 percent think security nationally will improve in the next year. But that falls to 40 percent in Sunni areas (and 28 percent in Anbar).

Iraqis were asked in this survey what makes them feel unsafe, or if, instead, they feel safe. In a notable improvement, 51 percent say they feel safe — nearly double what it was in June 2004.

Among the half of Iraqis who do feel unsafe, the main reason given, by far, is terrorism. And many in this "unsafe" group "very often" take a range of steps: avoiding U.S. forces (67 percent), avoiding checkpoints (52 percent), avoiding police and government buildings (47 percent), and being careful what they say (43 percent).

Top security-related priorities for the future are fighting ordinary crime and stopping attacks on civilians and the Iraqi police or army. Stopping attacks on coalition forces comes in much lower.



Confidence

Despite the growing gap between Sunni and Shiite provinces, confidence in some institutions has risen overall, particularly confidence in the Iraqi Army, up from 39 percent in November 2003 to 67 percent now; and in the police, up from 45 percent to 68 percent (but stable since last year).


Confidence in Public Institutions: Percent Confident

Police 68%
Iraqi Army 67%
Religious Leaders 67%

Natl. Govt. 53%
Ministeries in Baghdad 45%
Local Governate 42%

Local Leaders 41%
U.N. 31%
Political Parties 25%

U.S./U.K. Forces 18%




Election

As noted, 76 percent of Iraqis express confidence that this week's elections will produce a stable government, although fewer, 42 percent, are very confident of it. Interest in politics has soared — 39 percent in an Oxford survey in November 2003, 54 percent in February 2004 and 69 percent now. But there's been an 11-point dip since June 2004 in people talking about politics, in what may reflect increased caution in light of the Iraqi insurgency.

The election itself looks wide open, at least from the perspective of these October-to-November interviews. Thirty-seven percent of Iraqis said they hadn't decided which party to support (but were planning to vote). Those with a preference were scattered among a wide range of political parties.

Support for former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's Wifaq National Movement, or Iraqi National Accord Movement, was 9 percent; the Kurdish PUK, 9 percent; the Shiite-affiliated Islamic al-Dawa Party, 8 percent. Parties people would "never vote for" include the now-outlawed al-Baath (9 percent) and al-Dawa (7 percent).

National leaders with the greatest trust include the current prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari (15 percent), Allawi (15 percent) and Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani (10 percent), with others in single digits. But al-Jaffari also comes up as No. 1 on the don't-trust at-all list, at 12 percent. Such is politics.


Democracy

As in so many of these issues, a closer look at views on Iraq's future system of government may give pause to policy makers there (and in the United States as well).

Overall, as noted, 57 percent of Iraqis prefer democracy to either strongman rule or an Islamic state. But preference for democracy falls under 50 percent among people in Shiite areas (45 percent) and Sunni areas (38 percent) alike. Democracy is boosted to a majority by its support in Kurdish provinces and in mixed Shiite/Sunni areas, chiefly the capital, Baghdad.



Women

Finally, this survey asked about women's rights in Iraq, and found a broad range of responses: On one hand 99 percent of Iraqis support women voting or working as medical doctors; on the other fewer than half say a woman should be able to serve as president; and fewer still, 38 percent, say women should be eligible to serve as an elected village or town chief, known as a mukhtar.

These views, surprisingly in the less-tolerant cases, are almost identical among men and women. The differences instead, as in so much in Iraq, appear in the regions. In Kurdish areas, 76 percent say a woman should be able to be elected as mukhtar. In Shiite-dominated areas it's 56 percent. But that falls to 32 percent in mixed Shiite-Sunni areas, and bottoms out at just 6 percent in mainly Sunni provinces.

The range is similar for other offices. Seventy-one percent of Kurds say a woman should be able to serve as president; in Sunni areas this dives to 21 percent. And it goes lower: In Anbar province, the conservative center of Sunni discontent, just 8 percent would accept a woman as president of Iraq.


Methodology

This poll was conducted for ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel by Oxford Research International. Interviews were conducted Oct. 8 to Nov. 22, 2005, in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and up. The results have a 2.5-point error margin. Details of the survey methodology are available upon request.

This analysis examines regions where different groups dominate, based primarily on data from the February 2004 Iraq poll. Predominantly Shiite Arab provinces were identified as Basra, Kerbala, Missan, Najaf, Qadissiyah and Wassit, all in the South. Predominantly Sunni Arab provinces are Anbar, Diyala, Ninewa and Salah Al-Din. Mixed provinces are Babil, Baghdad and Tameem, and predominantly Kurdish provinces in the North are Dokuhk, Erbil and Suleymaniya. The two remaining provinces, Muthanna and Thi-Qar, both in the mainly Shiite South, were not selected in the random-sampling process in this survey.

Texas
 

I doubt the business lobby would ever be against it. What happens when you get a Gerrymander is that the people elected get more extreme. You get prounion and trial lawyer dems, and pro gun, religious conservatives. Generally centrists of both party are probusiness.

In california the NRA, all the right to life groups, the Unions and the trial lawyers all opposed reform. The business lobby and political reform organization were the only ones that were for it.

Texas
 

For a start, for any business or governmental organization they would only be allowed to have humans answer the phone, and the humans would be available twenty four seven.

Texas
 

There was an interesting article I read recently--NY Times perhaps? Or The Week?--that challenged this well-accepted hypothesis. That is, the assumption is that by "rigging" districts, we get more polarized representation--either way left or way right. This study looked at, IIRC, presidential voting at a very small level. It turned out that over time, all neighborhoods became more partisan, one way or hte other. That is, whereas the R-D spread used to range from, say, -10 to +10 in the average area, it's now -25 to +25. In other words, it wouldn't really matter how you sensibly districted, you'd still end up with more liberal/conservative representatives.

Of course, you could do something like pie-wedges from a city, to capture the inner-city liberals and the suburban conservatives, but that's hardly sensible either--that just creates "balanced" districts that can go either way, but in either case hacks off 49% of the district, who then is not represented.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Just like any true democrat would disband the military and nationalize all industry in America.

Good news/bad news, Hank.

Looks like the Bush Administration is reversing a decades-long practice of permitting staff recommendations on Voting Rights Act cases.

• The Justice Department has barred staff attorneys from offering recommendations in major Voting Rights Act cases, marking a significant change in the procedures meant to insulate such decisions from politics, congressional aides and current and former employees familiar with the issue said.
  
  Disclosure of the change comes amid growing public criticism of Justice Department decisions to approve Republican-engineered plans in Texas and Georgia that were found to hurt minority voters by career staff attorneys who analyzed the plans. Political appointees overruled staff findings in both cases.
  
  The policy was implemented in the Georgia case, said a Justice employee who, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of retaliation. A staff memo urged rejecting the state's plan to require photo identification at the polls because it would harm black voters.
  
  But under the new policy, the recommendation was stripped out of that document and was not forwarded to higher officials in the Civil Rights Division, several sources familiar with the incident said.
  
  The policy helps explain why the Justice Department has portrayed an Aug. 25 staff memo obtained by The Washington Post as an "early draft," even though it was dated one day before the department gave "preclearance," or approval, to the Georgia plan. The state's plan has since been halted on constitutional grounds by a federal judge who likened it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.
  
  ...
  
  For decades, staff attorneys have made recommendations in Section 5 cases that have carried great weight within the department and that have been passed along to senior officials who make a final determination, former and current employees say.

Upside -- no more unpleasant public squabbling over pesky redistricting! Downside -- clear liberal staff attorney incompetence remains, hidden.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

You're right, Hank, I omitted a step: the NAS will also be consolidated with the EPA before both are eliminated entirely.

The NAS (including its subsidiaries the NIH and the National Research Council) does not propose, promulgate or enforce any regulations (except their internal regulations regarding its employees and members).

I am sure there are projects underway at the NAS to help address both of your questions. Doubtless, however, the results of both studies will be ignored if they contain any hint of a governmental component. (NAS projects with a commercial impact tend to be eagerly anticipated by industry even as they are ignored by Congress, however. For example, the rise of talapia as a farmed fish is due in major part to a NAS study on how to improve production efficiency.)

Texas
 

This is such B.S. When you have a large swath of independent voters (38 percent in California) and the election are decided in the primary they do not get any say. In a general election these independend swing voters will not go for extremeists, so when elections are actually competitive in the general election it has a strong moderating influence. That is why the centrists from both parties all come from the swing districts.

In addition, in the primary, especially a non=presidential congressional primary turnout is unbelieveably low (twenty percent). The lower the turnout the less likely moderate are to vote. Extremists always show up to vote, it is the moderating influences that turn out only in big elections.

In addition, in the primary a plurality of the votes can win (it works the same in the general election, but in reality there is just two competitive parties so there are only two candidates). With an open seat in a Republican primary you can get as many as ten candidates. The candidate with the most votes wins, no matter how little votes they get. In districts in California, in the Republican primary (with ten candiates and a twenty percent turnout) you get candidates winning with only fifteen thousand votes. The general election is a non event so you get a person with fifteen thousand votes representing 500,000 people.

Anybody who has spent fifteen minutes in retail politics knows that gerrymandering polarizes districts. Not because it is the conventional wisdom but because it is so painfully obvious a blind brain damaged orangutan could see it.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

I'm sure I don't know what you are talking about. Aramaic? What the hell is that? If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the children and legislators of America.

By the way, moderate Republican and DLC democrats alway support redistricting reform no matter who controls the state because both these groups know they can only get control of districts were centrist voters have say.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

I don't think yor hyperbole is nearly as close to the actual Democratic platform as mine is to the Republican.

I'm just sayin'.

California Death Penalty
 

So if Ahnold denies Tookie's clemency request and he's put to death tonight, what are the odds of random violence/riots in LA this week? Less, do your bookies have the numbers on that one? TIA.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Can you find me a congressional Republican that has called for the elimination of the NIH?

California Death Penalty
 

I found myself wondering about that as well.

Also, consider the possibility of targeted violence. Want to influence a clemency decision from the Terminator? Announce plans to go trash the lot at Universal.

Texas
 

Here's the problem with your dismissiveness--you have to compare it to something to say it's more polarizing. What is that something? Geographically contiguous districts? Districts demarked by physical landmarks/obstacles (highways, rivers, county borders, etc.)?

You need a baseline. It's easy to say that gerrymandered districts are polarized. But you have to compare it to a baseline using some other approach that's not just "create areas that are 50% D and 50% R". Because you might have to gerrymander just as much to get those districts.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Joe Barton isn't exactly a friend to researchers under federal grants. Especially if he doesn't agree with their conclusions.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

This was a much bigger issue in the 90s, but generally NAS funding has been regularly cut by Republican Congresses.

Off the top of my head from a 30 second Google search:

http://sciencedems.house.gov/randd/views_fy97.htm

Texas
 

When the judges do the districts they are told to follow the other political boundaries as much as possible: County lines and then city lines. I have never heard of a commission trying to get the parties even - that would be absurd and is not an option. In california in 1990, because the governor and the legislature could not agree on districts, the judges did the lines and followed those rules. The result was many conservative democrats and moderate republicans. In 1980 they had been gerrymandered so the 1990 redistricting made the california legislature more centrist and less partisan. In 2000, with the Dems controlling every branch of the government the districts were gerrymandered. On the congressional side five moderate Republicans lost their seats and one moderate Democrat lost their seat.

After the Gerrmander, in the primary the Chamber endorsed 90 candiates - 58 dems and 32 repubs. Only eight of the chamber endorsed candidates won. In other words all the prounions dems won, and all the repubs that were more concerend about abortion and guns that the business climate won. Before the gerrymander the chamber had a 78% success rate.

The state legislature is extremely partisan.

Right now with the current Gerrmander you have a congressional district in Southern california that is three hundred miles long and five miles wide.

Gerrymandered districts polarize legislative seats. I have seen it in action. It is a fact. When I look out my window and see dowtown Palo Alto, I know it is downtown Palo Alto. You can show me all the studies you want saying it isn't, but it is.

The study is absurd.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

You and RT are classic. I did not ask about cutting of funds to science stuff. In your diatribe you said that Republicans wanted to eliminate the NIH.

I am just asking for one congressional Republican that has called for the elimination of the NIH.

Saying that the Republicans want to eliminate the NIH is just as absurd as saying the Democrats want to eliminate the military and nationalize all industry.

I am just saying.

Comments
 

Doesn't the below poll demonstrate that anyone that said that the Iraqi population supports the insurgenst is wrong (TaxWonk). That anyone that thought that Iraq is a "quagmire" was wrong. And anyone that thought Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein was wrong.

And if the press is so unbiased towards the war why isn't this poll headlines of every paper in America.

?????????




ABC NEWS POLL. Iraqis Optimistic about their future.


Dec. 12, 2005 — Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. But views of the country's situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups — a study in contrasts between increasingly disaffected Sunni areas and vastly more positive Shiite and Kurdish provinces.

An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

Surprisingly, given the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.
Nonetheless, nationally, security is seen as the most pressing problem by far; 57 percent identify it as the country's top priority. Economic improvements are helping the public mood.

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

Life In Iraq: Percent Saying Good

In Your Life 70%
For Country 44%

There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country.

Interest in politics has soared.

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader.")

Whatever the current problems, 69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year — a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there. However, in a sign of the many challenges ahead, this optimism is far lower in Sunni Arab-dominated provinces, where just 35 percent are optimistic about the country's future.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

The EPA was created by a Republican (Nixon)

Comments
 

No, but the structure of this opening rant proves Hank has your log in.

Comments
 

I have just been learning from the masters: Penske, Hank and Bilmore.

Comments
 

The poll was heavily reported from what I have seen. I have seen it in my elevator all day. Polls do not generally make headlines anywhere, but are instead hard news fillers that get, at best, a spot below the fold on the first page or a bigger spread on page 3 or the equivalent.

I think you may be drawing too many conclusions from this. Among other things, it shows a deeply divided electorate where major groups have misgivings about Democracy.

There was a lot of good news in the poll, including over 50% (but not much over 50%) of the populace supporting a continued US presence. But the extreme differences on issues ranging from support for Democracy to women's place in the country spell ongoing conflict. And it is possible for an insurgency to maintain itself with support down around 10-20% - indeed, an insurgency in Iraq with majority supporty would be quite surprising, since at that level they could win through an electoral process. The insurgency is by definition not supported by most Iraqis. That does not mean, however, that it will not take American and Iraqi lives.

But, in any event, I can't think of anyone here who might say Iraq was better off than under Saddam, though this does seem to be the view of a significant minority of Iraqis. I do expect a number of people here would say the US would have been better off not ousting Saddam, but that is a very different inquiry.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

You miss the point... The ex-workers become EPA inspectors, at $30 per hour. And we set up a Dept of Job Training which will pay its teachers and legion of managers $40 per hour. Everybody makes money!

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Okay, fine. I wasn't able to find in my brief search a Congressional Republican that has called for the elimination of the NIH, just cutting it's budget in half.

Yes, there are Democrats who have called for reducing the military's budget. I still think that if you ask the run of the mill Republican on the floor of the Republican National Convention if the National Academy of Sciences should be eliminated (after explaining to him what that was), he would say yes. Hell, even you are hiding the ball: you want me to address the NIH, I want to address the entire Academy. Admit it: you do not value the research done by the NAS and NRC, and think it could go away.

I don't think the average Democrat in the same situation would advocate eliminating the Armed Forces (or for that matter, eliminating the Army and the Air Force but leaving the Navy and Marines).

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Okay, then, that clears that up: Republicans are for protecting the environment.

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Will it all be free, like GGG and Ty's health care plan?

I think this is agreat idea.......
 

Next time you guys get control (hypo!) why don't you shut down industry? You could really clean up the environment if you banned all chemicals used for anything.

Texas
 

The problem is that provides no guidance. Inevitably counties are different sizes. So you need to break up counties. How then to do that? Expand west, east, north, or south? Any choice will have ramifications. Do you make the choice on the smallest amount of area you need to increase the population to the one person/one vote size, or do you go for the area that will increase the partisan balance, or do you go for the area that will amplify the partisan balance?

Look--you can believe what you want based on casual empiricism. Or you can read the study, which I've now located, and can either modify your views or tell me where the study errs.

(btw, I did not accurately summarize their methodology--the principle basis for their conclusion is that the "safeness" of seats increases more in election years outside the redistricting period, which suggests something other than redistricting made the seats safer)

(edited to replace with better link)

Comments
 

FWIW, this BBC Poll has some similar numbers about general optimism among Iraqis that things getting better. I also note that they're pretty unanimous in their feelings that the US should get the fuck out of their country, as of yesterday. So, we're done! Cool.