Thursday, April 29, 2010
Here comes the sludge
Now it is estimated that 5,000 barrels a day are pouring out of the well in the Gulf of Mexico, not that 1,000 previously quoted. This NASA image from its Aqua satellite using its Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer shows the Louisiana coast on Tuesday.
Drill, baby, drill?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Recapturing the suburbs
House and Senate Races in 2010
The whole House of Representatives and a third of Senate seats are on the ballot in 2010.
The 2010 election began to be discussed on Wednesday 5 November 2008. The media, politicians, everyone, it seemed, was looking ahead two years. Now it is a very hot topic.Some details of this story are quite fascinating, beginning with the degree to which the US is a suburban country.
Suburban districts now determine who holds the House, and usually the presidency as well. About half the country's population is now considered suburban, up from roughly a third in 1980. Two hundred and twenty of the 435 congressional districts are predominantly suburban, according to a 2005 study by Congressional Quarterly.
220 of 435 is 50.6%, or more than half. That shapes politics: a particular constituency is the majority of the electorate.
"If you can't win in the suburbs, you can't get to the majority. It's as simple as that," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican now in charge of recruiting challengers as part of his party's bid to retake the House. Currently, the Democrats have 254 House seats and a 37-seat majority.
But, what does that mean? Who are suburbanites?
The recent shift to Democrats has been fueled by a boom in suburban-dwelling immigrants and minorities, who tend to favor Democrats, and also by an influx of more liberal college-educated whites. Fairfax County is now home to six Fortune 500 companies, including General Dynamics and Gannett Corp. Nearly a third of its 1.2 million residents were born abroad.
Not the old stereotype of white Republican suburbanites; different demographics.
At bottom, the main issue for suburban voters tends to be one of competence and trustworthiness. "If you can make the case that the government is being incompetently managed, suburbanites put responsibility squarely on those in charge," said Robert Lang, who studies political demographics and suburban America at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "And if the verdict goes against you, it can be damaging."
Democrats are suffering a loss of confidence, and the health care debacle is a large part of that: for a year they did not get it done, there was a smell about the process, and they lost the initiative. Yet the Republicans are the party of no. Whether that is enough to make electoral inroads remains to be seen.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, a liberal Democrat who won the seat by a wide margin in 2008, agrees—up to a point. "Seeing it go Republican again would be big," he said, before adding, "I don't expect that to happen."
Mr. Connolly remains deeply enmeshed in the minutiae of his district. During a recent drive, he made sure to note every playground, park, intersection, library and shopping mall he helped create while on the board of supervisors.
The 2010 election began to be discussed on Wednesday 5 November 2008. The media, politicians, everyone, it seemed, was looking ahead two years. Now it is a very hot topic.Some details of this story are quite fascinating, beginning with the degree to which the US is a suburban country.
Suburban districts now determine who holds the House, and usually the presidency as well. About half the country's population is now considered suburban, up from roughly a third in 1980. Two hundred and twenty of the 435 congressional districts are predominantly suburban, according to a 2005 study by Congressional Quarterly.
220 of 435 is 50.6%, or more than half. That shapes politics: a particular constituency is the majority of the electorate.
"If you can't win in the suburbs, you can't get to the majority. It's as simple as that," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican now in charge of recruiting challengers as part of his party's bid to retake the House. Currently, the Democrats have 254 House seats and a 37-seat majority.
But, what does that mean? Who are suburbanites?
The recent shift to Democrats has been fueled by a boom in suburban-dwelling immigrants and minorities, who tend to favor Democrats, and also by an influx of more liberal college-educated whites. Fairfax County is now home to six Fortune 500 companies, including General Dynamics and Gannett Corp. Nearly a third of its 1.2 million residents were born abroad.
Not the old stereotype of white Republican suburbanites; different demographics.
At bottom, the main issue for suburban voters tends to be one of competence and trustworthiness. "If you can make the case that the government is being incompetently managed, suburbanites put responsibility squarely on those in charge," said Robert Lang, who studies political demographics and suburban America at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "And if the verdict goes against you, it can be damaging."
Democrats are suffering a loss of confidence, and the health care debacle is a large part of that: for a year they did not get it done, there was a smell about the process, and they lost the initiative. Yet the Republicans are the party of no. Whether that is enough to make electoral inroads remains to be seen.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, a liberal Democrat who won the seat by a wide margin in 2008, agrees—up to a point. "Seeing it go Republican again would be big," he said, before adding, "I don't expect that to happen."
Mr. Connolly remains deeply enmeshed in the minutiae of his district. During a recent drive, he made sure to note every playground, park, intersection, library and shopping mall he helped create while on the board of supervisors.
Immigration law boosts Arizona governor
Arizona has passed a bill authorizing police officers to stop any person the officer suspects of being an undocumented immigrant. It is causing quite an uproar. Univision news leads off its news telecasts with the story, and examines it thoroughly; Anglo news gets to it some time during the half hour. It's startling how different of a priority it is for the separate constituencies; well, not startling, truly, but it is a stark contrast.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's call to raise taxes threatened her political future, say political analysts, but her decision to crack down on illegal immigration could save it. Facing a yawning budget gap and anemic political support, Gov. Brewer stands to get a boost from her signing last week of an immigration enforcement bill ahead of this summer's Republican gubernatorial primary.
Watching a news program a couple of nights ago, or so, I saw Gover Norquist make this point. Norquist is an anti-tax actuivist, and is also on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and the American Conservative Union. Not my type of guy, but he does make an interesting point abou the Governor. As for the rest of the Arizonans supporting this crazy scheme, I can only wonder if they truly believe that this law will work. There is a lot of anger, on both sides. Authorizing police to act as immigration agents is a dubious enterprise.
Concern about spiraling violence related to drug and human smuggling has escalated to public outrage after the death of a rancher near the U.S.-Mexico border. Polls showed Arizona voters overwhelmingly in favor of the measure, which makes illegal immigration a state crime.
The escalating violence inside of Mexico has spilled over the border on occassion. Who was responsible for that death is still an open question.
Even critics of the law said the governor's support made political sense. "Not signing it would have been political suicide," said Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a civil-rights group. At a news conference Friday, the governor said, "We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels." She blamed the federal government for ignoring Arizona's border-related troubles.
The federal government has not dealt with the border issues properly because it is such a polarizing issue. But ignoring it does not work.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has signaled his desire to push federal legislation this year to overhaul the immigration system, including a provision paving the way to legalize millions of undocumented workers That measure is popular with Hispanic voters, who make up 15% of the electorate in Mr. Reid's home state of Nevada, where he is embroiled in a difficult re-election bid. Hispanics make up growing shares of the vote in other states with big races this year, including Colorado and Florida.
Senator Reid needs votes.
Mr. Obama, who last week called senators to build support for the federal bill, appears to welcome the debate. But the federal bill's prospects are unclear. A similar measure failed in 2007 amid opposition from conservatives, who criticized the legalization as unfair amnesty. The chief sponsor of that measure, Arizona Sen. John McCain, facing a primary challenge from the right, came out this year in support of the state measure signed by Ms. Brewer and hasn't played a role in the Senate negotiations.
Classic McCain: flip, flop.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's call to raise taxes threatened her political future, say political analysts, but her decision to crack down on illegal immigration could save it. Facing a yawning budget gap and anemic political support, Gov. Brewer stands to get a boost from her signing last week of an immigration enforcement bill ahead of this summer's Republican gubernatorial primary.
Watching a news program a couple of nights ago, or so, I saw Gover Norquist make this point. Norquist is an anti-tax actuivist, and is also on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and the American Conservative Union. Not my type of guy, but he does make an interesting point abou the Governor. As for the rest of the Arizonans supporting this crazy scheme, I can only wonder if they truly believe that this law will work. There is a lot of anger, on both sides. Authorizing police to act as immigration agents is a dubious enterprise.
Concern about spiraling violence related to drug and human smuggling has escalated to public outrage after the death of a rancher near the U.S.-Mexico border. Polls showed Arizona voters overwhelmingly in favor of the measure, which makes illegal immigration a state crime.
The escalating violence inside of Mexico has spilled over the border on occassion. Who was responsible for that death is still an open question.
Even critics of the law said the governor's support made political sense. "Not signing it would have been political suicide," said Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a civil-rights group. At a news conference Friday, the governor said, "We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels." She blamed the federal government for ignoring Arizona's border-related troubles.
The federal government has not dealt with the border issues properly because it is such a polarizing issue. But ignoring it does not work.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has signaled his desire to push federal legislation this year to overhaul the immigration system, including a provision paving the way to legalize millions of undocumented workers That measure is popular with Hispanic voters, who make up 15% of the electorate in Mr. Reid's home state of Nevada, where he is embroiled in a difficult re-election bid. Hispanics make up growing shares of the vote in other states with big races this year, including Colorado and Florida.
Senator Reid needs votes.
Mr. Obama, who last week called senators to build support for the federal bill, appears to welcome the debate. But the federal bill's prospects are unclear. A similar measure failed in 2007 amid opposition from conservatives, who criticized the legalization as unfair amnesty. The chief sponsor of that measure, Arizona Sen. John McCain, facing a primary challenge from the right, came out this year in support of the state measure signed by Ms. Brewer and hasn't played a role in the Senate negotiations.
Classic McCain: flip, flop.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Level playing field?
President Obama mentioned a recent Supreme Court decision that, he asserted, would allow corporate special interests to flood the election landscape with their money. Now, legislation has been proposed to counter that.
The proposed legislation, meant to address a recent Supreme Court decision that eased the rules on political television advertisements, would require groups that run campaign attack ads to disclose the names of the businesses, labor unions and other groups that fund the efforts.
However, that provision cuts both ways: the "left" is opposed, for its own special reasons, or, rather, reason: the money it gets.
advocacy groups on the left, such as the Sierra Club environmentalist group and the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal organizations, are lobbying to weaken the central element of the proposed bill. They worry that it could hurt their ability to raise money.
Dilemma.
The liberal groups, along with conservative and business organizations, are concerned that wealthy individuals and entities wouldn't donate to their organizations if their names had to be disclosed. "It's a significant issue," said David Willett, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. He said that the environmental group was working to change the legislation. It was too soon, he added, to say whether or not the Sierra Club would oppose the bill. Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at the Alliance for Justice, said the group shared the Sierra Club's concerns.
Wealth should not be able to hide behind anonymity as it seeks to influence policy and elections.
The proposed legislation, meant to address a recent Supreme Court decision that eased the rules on political television advertisements, would require groups that run campaign attack ads to disclose the names of the businesses, labor unions and other groups that fund the efforts.
However, that provision cuts both ways: the "left" is opposed, for its own special reasons, or, rather, reason: the money it gets.
advocacy groups on the left, such as the Sierra Club environmentalist group and the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal organizations, are lobbying to weaken the central element of the proposed bill. They worry that it could hurt their ability to raise money.
Dilemma.
The liberal groups, along with conservative and business organizations, are concerned that wealthy individuals and entities wouldn't donate to their organizations if their names had to be disclosed. "It's a significant issue," said David Willett, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. He said that the environmental group was working to change the legislation. It was too soon, he added, to say whether or not the Sierra Club would oppose the bill. Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at the Alliance for Justice, said the group shared the Sierra Club's concerns.
Wealth should not be able to hide behind anonymity as it seeks to influence policy and elections.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
LIberal?
Gary Wills reviewing David Remnick's The Bridge, discusses Barack Obama: Later, when he taught at the University of Chicago Law School, he won the respect of conservative professors there, including Richard Posner — “especially,” as Posner tells Remnick, “after one of my clerks, who had worked with him at The Harvard Law Review, told me that he wasn’t even all that liberal.” llustration by Joon Mo Kang;
photograph by Pete Souza
Barack Obama in 2004.
photograph by Pete Souza
Barack Obama in 2004.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wisconsin National Day of Prayer Is Ruled Unconstitutional
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the government cannot call for religious action.
Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008, arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.
President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the U.S.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said her order didn't block any prayer day until after appeals in the case are exhausted. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said that the ruling therefore didn't prevent Mr. Obama from issuing a Day of Prayer proclamation in May and that the president will do so.
—Associated Press
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the government cannot call for religious action.
Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008, arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.
President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the U.S.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said her order didn't block any prayer day until after appeals in the case are exhausted. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said that the ruling therefore didn't prevent Mr. Obama from issuing a Day of Prayer proclamation in May and that the president will do so.
—Associated Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
