Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[Dunefar]

Perhaps, though if you're going to talk American politics you should know how things work.

Then again, that doesn't stop most of the US population. So nevermind, carry on.

[metroid composite]

and just didn't realise that not all laws end up in the constitution.

No I realize that; I just got some misleading information about riders from my quick google search on them.

[SnowFire]

Yeah, but riders and amendments, uh, make sure stuff actually gets passed.  It's annoying when Pork Bellies for Bottomstown, Georgia gets strapped onto a worthy bill, but if you consider that this theoretically only happens when the bill will fail otherwise without that Georgia senator's vote, it's not so bad?  There are a number of good examples of this - American foreign aid notoriously is kind of inefficient due to thinly disguised "Buy American" "quality concerns" in it.  Yet nevertheless, the alternative for something politically toxic like foreign aid is drastically reduced aid and only to popular countries like Israel.  (Link: U.S. Jobs Shape Condoms’ Role in Foreign Aid .  No really. How Republicans from the South can be convinced that condoms are cool....)

Also there do tend to be rules about attaching TOTALLY unrelated provisions to a bill.  If you're going to haggle a congressman's vote, you normally have to make it at least somewhat relevant to the task at hand.  For example those really bad farm-aid bills generally bribe coastal and urban congressmen by including in the same bill better food stamp support for the cities and call it "Nutrition for America" or something.  Both sides of these bills are potentially quite unpopular outside their target region, but combining them into one bill gets you something that can pass.  (It's just unfortunate that the farm aid half REALLY IS BAD and doesn't just appear bad.)

In fairness.  Even if amendments were abolished, it wouldn't be that big a change, since politicians would still haggle.  They'd just say "I'll vote on Bill A if it's brought to the floor at the same time as my Bill B and I see you voting the right way on it.  Then I'll vote for your Bill A."  Of course now there'd be the possibility of backstabbery, but a politician who tried that would never be able to get anything done again, so it'd be a strictly one-time measure.

[NotMiki]

I think he meant laws, and just didn't realise that not all laws end up in the constitution.

Except in friggin' California.  Hippies.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Tanent: Whether something is or is not in the consitution affects how easy it is to change, but it does not affect whether or not such a law is good, so I wouldn't consider that knowledge necessary for debate.


Snowfire makes some decent points on the value of riders, but I must say I'm pretty skeptical. Not like countries without them can't get laws passed, y'know? And the amount of pork that they seem to create is a bit unsettling, although I haven't really researched the issue so it's possible it's an overblown issue. Still, I'll readilly admit my kneejerk is to second mc's sentiment.

[SnowFire]

To expand on the point above some more.  If there's a deal to be made, generally politicians will make it - this is where my game theorist checks in and mentions "Pareto optimality", as if by trading things they consider irrelevant they can get something they do care about passed, they'll likely do it.  It's just that, at least in America, probably the biggest concern for Congressmen are local issues like bringing federal funds into their area and protecting local businesses, which can often clash with national priorities everyone pays like balancing the budget.

Also, I'm not sure that the USA is even the worst off in this regard (and comparing it to other 1st world countries).  I'm going to propose that the amount of "pork" in your average bill is related to two things: the strength of party discipline and the number of factions at the table.  Party discipline allows you to ignore the whiners in your own party who disagree and would normally need to be bought, and the fewer the parties the easier it is to pass legislation (passing it with just one party with a simple majority is ideal).  The United States, with only two political parties, is actually pretty well set up in this regard- it's just that party discipline is weak, with a number of "defections" on any random vote fully expected.  Countries with proportional representation systems have more of a problem here, as each party can demand their "cut" in a bill.  The worst example by far is Israel - the Shas party of ultra-orthodox are total mercenaries on economic issues, only asking that they get to run the religious establishment of Israel.  Since they can often make the winning coalition, that's how Israel has a lot of dumb laws like the ultra-orthodox getting to set the rules for all marriages, basically forcing secular Jews to head to Cyprus to get married.  This is a case where blatantly unrelated items really do get nailed together into the same deal (whether it's set up as an amendment/rider or not) to really bad effect.  Another bad example might be Italy, where Supreme Jerk Berlusconni gifted the Left with eternal infighting by passing a law that helped splinter it into a zillion tiny infighting parties.  The last coalition government the Left held under Prodi was really unstable as a result and had to do things like hand out the Minister of Justice role to corrupt Mafia-affiliated conservative centrists and other positions to loony Communists.

Interestingly enough, by my theory above, the UK should be the most pork-free: Two and a half party system with strong party discipline.  Labour single-handedly rules, ignoring the Tories.  The Lib Dems are basically more liberal than Labour and not after something totally different, as well (unlike nationalist/ single-issue parties that sometimes crop up when there are too many parties a la the Bloc Quebecois / Shas / various pensioners parties for old fogies).  On the other hand, my understanding is that Blair's government engaged in some wholly irresponsible porky giveaways to placate people before elections, so maybe I should just say "could" be the most pork-free.  Of course the most perfectly pork-free government would be a dictatorship...  since "pork" is to some degree what the people want but really shouldn't get, having a government that didn't have to listen to the people could accomplish that the best.  Of course the cost of ignoring the people is...  horrible.  So yeah, pork is bad, but going too far the other direction wouldn't be better.

[superaielman]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/10/news/economy/military_recruiting/index.htm?postversion=2009021014 Sort of related to what Miki and I were talking about last night.

Can't say I'm surprised at all by this. The military can definitely use the infusion of manpower, that's for sure.

[NotMiki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/burris-ethics-bubble-burs_n_167742.html

Can Illinois just, I dunno, get a mercy rule for corruption or something?  Call a mulligan on elected officials?  Something?

In other senate-ridiculousness related news, Coleman's lawyer referred today to Franken's "Current 'lead,' and I use the term euphemistically."  Not sure that was exactly the term he was looking for.

Trial was recessed today because Coleman's team didn't have their next witness ready.  Gee, it's almost like they're trying to drag it out.

I'm curious as to what public opinion looks like these days in Minnesota.  I don't begrudge Coleman his right to an appeal, but it's pretty clear now that he's not going to win it.  All but about 3,000 of the initially rejected absentee ballots have been categorically disqualified, and he's got a 250 vote deficit.  Given that Franken also has the right to challenge rejections, Coleman's sunk, barring appeals to the state supreme court and US supreme court.  What he appears to be doing now is laying the groundwork for a claim that the entire election is invalid as a result of different regional standards for whether absentee ballots are counted.  There is a legitimate issue that due to lax standards by some election officials, some absentee ballots that should have been rejected were counted, but it's hard to imagine a court agreeing that the election is so tainted by it that voiding its result is the proper remedy.  So mostly he's just killing time.

Well, time is money, or so they say, and another democratic vote on the stimulus would probably have shifted billions, possibly tens of billions of dollars toward the democratic spending.  So the big question: does Minnesota care?  Do they see Coleman as a loser of a close race now intent on disenfranchising them, or do they see Coleman as fighting to get the very best vote count despite a democratic majority that would like to hurry things up and brush him aside, a la Florida 2000?

[NotMiki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/white-house-to-burris-thi_n_168672.html

White House To Burris: Think About Your Future This Weekend

"I think it might be important for Senator Burris to take some time this weekend to either correct what has been said and - and certainly think of what lays in his future" Gibbs said.

eek.  That phrasing is very...Russian, I want to say.

Incidentally, the Governor of Illinois has indicated he wants the Illinios legislature to empower him to call a special election in the event of a senate seat vacancy (he would still appoint someone in the interim).  Illinois Republicans insist the governor already has the de facto ability to call an election in that case.

[Dunefar]

What a cockup. Letting Burris serve was a great idea guys.

[NotMiki]

Eh.  it wasn't ideal, but preventing him would have been constitutionally dubious.  I don't like that he's serving, but I like the idea that the senate can prevent someone from serving just because they don't like him even less (though I think it's fine for them to boot him if he lied in his testimony).  To me the ideal solution would have been for the Illinois legislature to introduce a bill that allows a petition to be brought to introduce a vote to revoke his candidacy, like CA did with their last governor.  But that'd take probably a lot of time.

EDIT: an intersting development in the Coleman/Franken legal proceeding.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/accusations-and-recriminations-fly-in-arguments-on-coleman-motion.php#more

When the recount was still going on, there was a group of absentee ballots that may or may not have been legitimate.  The body governing the recount said in essence that both sides must agree on which out of that group should be counted.  They agreed on 900 or so ballots, and they were counted, adding to Franken's lead.  Coleman later challenged the validity of the group, then dropped that challenge 2 weeks ago.  Because the challenge was dropped, the election officials scrubbed the envelopes of special markings and added the ballots back into the general pool (they were about half done with this process yesterday).  Well.  In Coleman's appeal, he forced the court overseeing the recount to rule on the validity of certain types of ballots.  The ruling the court passed down would have invalidated some of the 900 that were jointly agreed to.  But now half of them will not be able to be found to have a new ruling done.  So Coleman is laying more evidence so he can later claim the election is invalid.

The crux: Coleman KNEW at the time he dropped his first appeal of the 900 ballots that a ruling would be passed down that may affect the validity of ballots of those types.  In essence, he dropped the appeal to muddy the waters and ensure that there would be already-counted ballots that would be illegitimate under the new standard.  He dropped his appeal specifically to make the election result less legitimate.  Sneaky.

It remains to be seen what the judges will make of this.  Because both parties agreed that those ballots would be counted, the chance that Coleman's gambit will work here seems slim, but you never know.  (Incidentally, Coleman says that his agreement with Franken was invalidated because they couldn't legally agree to something that would otherwise be illegal.  It's not at all clear to me whether or not there is any validity to that, but since the court that mandated the agreement was the same court that later produced its own guidelines, it seems to me that court will have to determine whether or not they meant their later ruling to invalidate their earlier one.  That's what they get for not making the decisions on which ballots to count themselves in the first place.)

[NotMiki]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/dscc-spokesman-the-least-the-gop-can-do-is-buy-coleman-lunch.php

Free lunch for Coleman!  I wonder if the billions of dollars in education spending the Dems had to concede because they didn't have another senate vote would have gone toward the National Lunch Program that subsidizes lunch for poor kids.

[NotMiki]

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/02/24/kyl-to-host-controversial-anti-islamic-dutch-politician/

I can't fucking believe this.  I'll write more on it when I can wrap my head around it.

EDIT: Free speech is one of the most important ideals of the United States, and I think it's a great credit to our nation that we allow it in full, unlike the UK or Netherlands.  But a senator inviting someone to speak implies that the senator believes that person has something worthwhile to say.  I strenuously object to the idea that a bigot who believes in banning the Koran has anything of worth to contribute to a conversation about Islam.

[Dunefar]

Sometimes you have to let the most absurd voice speak, so that the wisdom of the other side can shine?

I dunno.

[Grefter]

Ehhhh that guy caused a bit of a stir amongst all the Dutch a few years ago, big enough that it got the eye of the world stage.  I would say he has had his chance to be a bigot.

[metroid composite]

EDIT: Free speech is one of the most important ideals of the United States, and I think it's a great credit to our nation that we allow it in full, unlike the UK or Netherlands. 

No country allows free speech in full.  I've talked to some Google employees, and they've talked about how every government wants to censor something.  In the case of the American government, for instance, child pornography.

And frankly, I agree that there's stuff out there that it's better to censor.  Child pornography usually implies misuse just to get the photos taken.  There's also stuff that deserves partial censorship.  While you can't exactly censor racism (historical documentaries have lots of it) speeches calling for more present-day racism should be given limited venues.  Most cities, for instance, would not allow billboards saying "blacks should be segregated", and hopefully would not allow billboards saying "ban the koran".

[Dunefar]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/education.school.year/index.html

On one hand, I think that it's admirable to try and improve the quality of education in America. On the other, I sigh. Sure, summer break isn't optimal for learning. But dammit, it's nice for everything not to be about school. What about the time to be a stupid kid instead? Any kid would tell you that those three months are the best of the year. What does it say when we want to take that away for the sake of adulthood?

[superaielman]

You are however allowed to say blacks should be segregated, even to a congressmen.  There's a very clear line in the sand about free speech- i t's when your free speech starts hurting others. The classic example of shouting fire in a movie theater is very accurate. We'll see what the senator says in response to the movie, but the spokesman quoted in the story makes some fair points. (Not so much the documentary, but the reactions to it.)

To dune's link: Like the government can afford even more school time as it stands. I don't think extending the year with the current system does any good, other than providing expensive (for the taxpayers) babysitting.

[Grefter]

I can't imagine that would be supported by any Sociology, psychologist or even anthropologist worth shit that you approached with the idea.  On the other hand, more institutionalized children are easier to control in adulthood as well.

[Luther Lansfeld]

You are however allowed to say blacks should be segregated, even to a congressmen.  There's a very clear line in the sand about free speech- i t's when your free speech starts hurting others. The classic example of shouting fire in a movie theater is very accurate. We'll see what the senator says in response to the movie, but the spokesman quoted in the story makes some fair points. (Not so much the documentary, but the reactions to it.)

My issue with this guy being invited to speak isn't that he doesn't have the right to; it's that the Congressman, who was elected by SOMEONE is EMBRACING these ideas. You act like he went and talked to the Congressman on the street. No, the Congressman is -hosting- this guy. The militant anti-Islamic is stupid but there's nothing wrong with being stupid, but one of our country's leaders meeting with someone like that outrages me. Not that he should be punished or anything but I sure as fuck wouldn't vote for someone like that in the future.

Duncan also suggested giving incentives to teachers whose students perform well, an unpopular idea with teachers' unions.

From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.

[superaielman]

My issue with this guy being invited to speak isn't that he doesn't have the right to; it's that the Congressman, who was elected by SOMEONE is EMBRACING these ideas. You act like he went and talked to the Congressman on the street. No, the Congressman is -hosting- this guy. The militant anti-Islamic is stupid but there's nothing wrong with being stupid, but one of our country's leaders meeting with someone like that outrages me. Not that he should be punished or anything but I sure as fuck wouldn't vote for someone like that in the future.

I'm going to wait and see the senator's reaction to the film. For all we know he could denouce the film (Unlikely, but who knows), or otherwise disagree. His comments imply is all that he's going to do is watch it and give an opinion, and wanted to at least give the man a chance. Unless I'm missing something here with the comments, he's not endorsing the film or filmmaker as of now.

From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.

I can understand the union's objections there. Wouldn't that just encourage grade inflation and passing students along?

[NotMiki]

EDIT: Free speech is one of the most important ideals of the United States, and I think it's a great credit to our nation that we allow it in full, unlike the UK or Netherlands. 

No country allows free speech in full.  I've talked to some Google employees, and they've talked about how every government wants to censor something.  In the case of the American government, for instance, child pornography.

And frankly, I agree that there's stuff out there that it's better to censor.  Child pornography usually implies misuse just to get the photos taken.  There's also stuff that deserves partial censorship.  While you can't exactly censor racism (historical documentaries have lots of it) speeches calling for more present-day racism should be given limited venues.  Most cities, for instance, would not allow billboards saying "blacks should be segregated", and hopefully would not allow billboards saying "ban the Koran".

You're right, of course.  America draws a distinction where speech that perpetrates crime is illegal, and it's a good thing we do.  I suppose we differ from the UK and countries that ban hate speech primarily because we demand proof that the speech did or would have caused material damage, so that something like hate speech that precedes violence must be proved to have perpetrated it as opposed to being, in general, bad for society (after all, we're not socialists, are we?).  (child pornography is, of course, an easy call, for a variety of reasons including the right to privacy and, I'm sure, a raft of laws that forbid disclosure of underage victims of crimes.)

On the note of cities forbidding billboards, the supreme court recently ruled in a 9-0 decision that municipalities picking and choosing messages to display on public land is not a violation of the free speech of those who don't get chosen (so long as those not chosen can still give speeches, pass out pamphlets and the like).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/washington/26scotus.html?scp=1&sq=supreme%20court%20utah&st=cse

I'm going to wait and see the senator's reaction to the film. For all we know he could denouce the film (Unlikely, but who knows), or otherwise disagree. His comments imply is all that he's going to do is watch it and give an opinion, and wanted to at least give the man a chance. Unless I'm missing something here with the comments, he's not endorsing the film or filmmaker as of now.

I think inviting him amounts to an implicit endorsement that his ideas are, at the very least, worth listening to.  Introducing radical ideas into the public sphere legitimizes those ideas.  Personally, I don't think someone who wants to ban the Koran deserves even a whiff of legitimacy.

[Luther Lansfeld]

From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.

I can understand the union's objections there. Wouldn't that just encourage grade inflation and passing students along?

I don't think that grades is really a good way to reflect much of any type of achievement, since they are vaguely arbitrary. Regardless, I feel like that if teachers don't have an incentive to do better than another teacher who is bad-to-mediocre but still keeping their job, then they won't. And that's a tragedy.

[NotMiki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/us/01sin.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

 “We’re all jonesing now for money,” Mr. Ammiano said. “And there’s this enormous industry out there.”

Yes, Mr. Anniano, I'm sure we all are.

[metroid composite]

Duncan also suggested giving incentives to teachers whose students perform well, an unpopular idea with teachers' unions.

From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.

Grading teachers on student performance is a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible idea.  It is the single reason why "no child left behind" is such an awful bill.

Consider the story I heard from a Washington state teacher.  She came in, had a bright group of second graders her first year, who of course scored well on the NCLB standard test.  She was the hero of the school.  The next year she had a less bright class, who of course scored lower, and suddenly the administration was giving her the cold shoulder.  She used exactly the same teaching techniques both years, and in fact you'd think that by the second year she'd be more experienced and therefore better; just...not every class is going to have the same average intelligence.

In the Vancouver area, every year the "Fraiser Institute" grades every school on its performance in provincial exams--basically by looking at the average score that students get on the exams.  The first problem is that most parents assume this says something about the teachers at the school, which is largely false--the teachers in the VSB region rotate schools every 5 years on average, so you're drawing from the same pool of teachers at any school you can attend.  What it does say is a lot about the socioeconomic level of the kids--there's the east side where the average parent doesn't speak English and never finished grade 10.  Then there's the school located right near the university campus where the average parent has a PhD.  The second, even more egregious problem with the Fraiser Institute scoring system is that schools try to doctor their results--how do you get your average score up on the Math 12 exam?  Pressure most of the kids to drop out of math!!!!!  (No, seriously, schools were doing this *coughKitsilanocough*).

I'm not saying you should have no measure of teacher perfomance, but trying to measure teacher performance by looking at the kids they're teaching always seems to do more harm than good.