A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
January 31, 2006State Of The Union - Open ThreadComment on the president's SOTU address, scheduled for 9 PM tonight. Posted by rickheller at January 31, 2006 05:14 PMComments
The SOTU will mention that we as Americans are addicted to oil. Didn't Jimmy Carter try to bring attention to this very same problem back in the seventies - and was ridiculed by today's leaders? Posted by: George at January 31, 2006 05:37 PMYeah, he did. As far as the speech goes, I'm just hoping for some actual proposals, as opposed to the usual rhetoric. Posted by: Rafique Tucker at January 31, 2006 05:55 PMThis may be a true lame duck SOTU tonight. Bush seems to have very little positive momentum to try to get any new inititives passed. Sounds like it will be pushing medical savings accounts and a slight nod to alternative fuels. [Insert standard boiler plate speech on War on Terror here] Health savings sounds good on the surface. However, it seems a bit more of a smokescreen just to relieve major employers of health care issues and to throw it back on individuals. Unfortunately, I fear the system is too broken to allow individuals to work. I really feel that legal and structural reforms need to be done in the health/insurance/medicare industry before savings plans will be workable. Since I don't see anyone in government willing to go on a slashing trip through sacred cows, health savings accounts will turn out to be a disaster, IMHO. Posted by: Jim M at January 31, 2006 05:58 PMIt's starting. Alito's there. I heard that Cindy Sheehan would be there as a guest of Rep. Lynne Woolsley, but also that she'd been arrested. Which is true? Posted by: rickheller at January 31, 2006 09:09 PMClassy opening acknoledging the passing of Coretta Scott King. Posted by: rickheller at January 31, 2006 09:13 PMWell he could have phoned that one in. I enjoyed the humorous moments for a bit. The Dems got him good with his SS plan line, but he came back well from it. A little mutual tweaking by both sides to liven things up. I liked McCain's reaction to the line about ear-mark reform, and thought it was quite amusing how he used it to good-humoredly call for the line item veto. Posted by: PatHMV at January 31, 2006 09:46 PMRick, Cindy Sheehan has been arrested. Which ought to make for an interesting headline tomorrow. Posted by: Blue Jean at January 31, 2006 10:12 PMI was mostly on board the broad strokes of his foreign policy, but there was little on the domestic side to appeal to me. On the wiretapping, he made a case that will probably win over most Americans, but I still think there should be warrants. I didn't like what he had to say about immigration. Posted by: rickheller at January 31, 2006 10:13 PMBill Kristol on Fox News said he thinks the "squishes" inside the White House won all the internal debates on the speech, with the hard core conservatives losing out in the debate. Kristol, of course, hopes they just lost the battle over the speech, not the war over the policies. I think the President knew very well he had little need to reach out to the conservative base tonight because of the presence of one man in the chamber... Samuel Alito. The conservative base torched the President over Harriet Meiers. He responded by giving them what they wanted, Alito... but that could well be the last thing he gives them. Posted by: PatHMV at January 31, 2006 10:21 PMGranted, I'm not listening that closely, but I think the Democratic Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia needs to work a whole lot on his delivery. It sounds like the teleprompter is running a little slow, forcing him to pause at unnatural spots. And that permanently raised eyebrow is just odd looking. Posted by: PatHMV at January 31, 2006 10:26 PMAs a Louisianian, the biggest disappointment in the President's speech was its bare, scant, maybe 40 seconds given to the destruction of New Orleans and other areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. We still need help, and plenty of it down here. People who were middle-class homeowners (both black and white) before last Aug. 29 now face financial devastation without some kind of relief. There are only a small handful of public schools reopened in New Orleans, 5 months after the storm. It deserved more time and more commitments from the President. Posted by: PatHMV at January 31, 2006 10:32 PMHe said many things that appeal to me as a centrist: Energy independence, Alternative fuels, I just don't believe his committment to move these forward. Posted by: Paul at January 31, 2006 10:33 PMFailing all else, you should believe his commitment on immigration. The rabid right really dislikes the President's positions on immigration. He may not in the end succeed because of the combined strength of isolations Republicans and isolationist Democrats, but it won't be for lack of true desire. Posted by: PatHMV at January 31, 2006 10:45 PMI thought Bush did well, not surprising, typical, but what he needed to. You got to like a guy that doesn't falter in the face of high 30's approval ratings. I hate how these things have become the laundry list of policies because it takes away from substance, but I thought he pointed out the right ones: action over isolationism, over spending on entitlements, budget earmarks, Health Savings Accounts, a guest worker program for legal immigrants, and alternative energy solutions aimed at ending our nation's dependence on oil. One must question his ability to follow through after the failure of Social Security reform, but it was a good speech to begin the year. If there is anything that keeps me a partisan it is the stupidity and the weak nature of the Democratic party. Kaine, an otherwise smart guy, was really bad, only offering questions and Bush bashing without any substantial policy positions. The Cindy Sheehan fiasco represents the party's biggest problem... While the more centrist establisment fumbles the football, the base is doing the talking and permanently stamping the label "minority party" on the Democrats. Posted by: Mathew at January 31, 2006 11:28 PMI was really impressed by the fact that he really wants to cut a massive 14 billion dollars in spending. Just utterly awesome. And to think that with that he might be able to cut the deficit in half.
LIV = DOA. With few exceptions, the GOP hasn't serious about cutting much spending anyway and have really never been except for certain parts of the budget that they have ideological disagreements with. Those conference committees where they've excluded the democrats from participation were just open invites to grand larceny on a scale never seen before.Bush mentioned NOTHING about that at all. My daughter is sooo pissed off at all the deficits cause she and her generation get to pay it. Sorta like leaving your kid with a 60,000 VISA bill that they have to pay after you die.
It was a nice speech, mostly. IMO the majority of his policies suggested good directions. I agreed with his foreign policy statements, and his calling to tackle social security and energy dependency, which are are areas where we all trend to agree on the direction (solvency and weaning off, respectively)but not the policy means. Ultimately, the SOTU, because of its length and prominence, belongs at or near the top of the list of "things politicians say." As we know, what matters is what they DO. What makes sense to me is that we (we the people, we the pundits, we the centrists, take your pick) use the SOTU as a basis for making a report card for 2006. We record the promises made, and then make a report card to track progress on each issue during the year. Prior to the 2007 SOTU, we decide on the grades. Posted by: bk at February 1, 2006 09:04 AMThe speech pretty much hit at the level I expected. I did chuckle at the 14B and cuttting the deficit in half. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of those cuts are coming in areas that should not be cut, especially student loans. I found myself rolling my eyes at his education program ideas. Probably be more unfunded federal mandates. I was underwhelmed. Bipartisan commision for Social Security and Medicare? That bipartisan committee on reform the tax code did such a fantastic job, didn't it? The alternative energy ideas are a "I will believe them when I see them" type deal. His portion on health care was even less then what I expected. He really seemed to show his currently weakend position. Not that the Democratic response was all that impressive. That reminded of the many dog and pony shows I have seen from various marketing reps for computer companies. Long on buzz, short on substance. Sounded more like an advertisment for the Commonwealth of Virginia than a response to the Presidents speech. Posted by: Jim M at February 1, 2006 10:23 AMAh, the Line Item veto is still on the books, it has not been repealed, it's just sitting there having been declared unconstitutional. all Bush would ahve to do in order to bring up the debate again is use it and she what happends. Posted by: Rick DeMent at February 1, 2006 10:46 AMOh and one more thing, if Bush thinks that we are “addicted to oil”, does that mean why is it that he is so up for drilling ANWR since that would be analogous to hocking your wedding ring for one more fix. (gag stolen from The Onion) Posted by: Rick DeMent at February 1, 2006 10:48 AMThomas Friedman last Friday. On Tuesday President Bush will deliver his State of the Union and map out priorities for his last three years. The direction in which America needs to go is obvious: toward energy independence. If Mr. Bush steps up to that challenge, this speech could be a new beginning for his presidency. If he doesn't, you can stick a fork in this administration. It will be done - because it will have abdicated leadership on the biggest issue of our day. We should all be pleased that Mr. Bush is now apparently on the same page as Mr. Friedman. Posted by: Todd Pearson at February 1, 2006 10:55 AM Watching the SOTU on TV reinforced just how partisan and fractured (along party lines) that the Congress is. Over the last 50+ years, both parties have been criminally involved in creating a staggering federal debt, not to mention other problems. And now, they can barely work together in a civil manner. Why do we keep voting for these 2 parties? Posted by: G. Avlonitis at February 1, 2006 10:57 AMI thought the tax coide commission came up with some good ideas for genuine reform that made ssence even though they may be unpopular. The only trhing wrong with it was that by the time the commission reported, few if any were willing to stand up as committed to the process, largely becuase the substantive reccomendatiuons were bound to be unpopular. I think that Bush's idea for a commission makes sense at this point, because the democrats rallied the people against Bush version of reform, but we still have the problem of looming insolvency and the democrats don't have a substantive reform package that people support. But the commission onbly makes sense if it can get bipartisan support that appraoches a level of committment to to standing behind the findings even if they are not especially popular. So they'd need some people on it with bi-partisan respect and gravitas, and they'd need some of the same sorts of people to stand up and support the findings and hold our feet to the fire. If a commission leads to a report that all the pols run from, and that the people don't face, then it's a waste of time. Ultimately it's about facing the need to preserve solvency as our population grays, and we all have to face the music. And in a democracy, facing the music is not going to be achieved by people of means adopting anything like an "I've got mine, just let me opt out" system. We need a plan that provides solvency without screwing those people who BOTH relied upon the government's promises and now NEED those promises fulfilled as they head into retirement. But we can talk about phasing in a plan that is less pay-go, because the trends in the numbers say that a pay-go system is bound to be an increasing generational burden shifter, and that's not right. Posted by: bk at February 1, 2006 11:05 AMI guess I felt the tax reform commision was unimpressive because of the fact that when it came back, it was almost file thirteened within minutes and no subsantive discussion took place about it in Congress. Throwing something like this to a bipartisan commision only seems to work in the guideline of a Base Closure commision where up/down votes are done and that is it. Otherwise, the lobbying groups are too powerful to allow any serious proposals to be through. I have no confidence in the current leadership having the will to reform SS/Medicare. It may take a generational revolt in about 10-15 years before something is done. Posted by: Jim M at February 1, 2006 11:14 AMNote Freidman's "solution." Therefore, I propose creating a government agency that will buy up any gas-guzzling car or truck in America at the original new or used price, and crush it. This national buy-back program will be financed by a $2-a-gallon gasoline tax that will be phased in by 10 cents a month beginning in 2008 - so people know what is coming and start buying fuel-efficient cars right now. Yep--tax the hell out of people. Naturally, this would HAVE to be followed by government subsidies for the poor to help them buy those new cars. That'll go right along with Freidman's "...gas-tax rebates to lower-income folks...". Missing from this equation is the other price that would be paid. Study: Compact Cars Have High Death Rates The NTSA paper can be found here. [PDF] I don't think Freidman and Bush are really on the same page as far as solutions go. The word hiding in the background is "nuclear." Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2006 11:16 AMI'm down with any plan that provides us with a coherent energy policy, because I'm not convinced ours right now is much more than 'protect our oil supplies by any means necessary. Find more by any means necessary." Earth's supply of oil is finite. And burning fossil fuels may result in unacceptable cumulative damage to the environment. That's reason enough for our long-term energy policy to have an oil exit stategy. But the exact nature of a good strategy depends on the real-world variables. I am all for alternative energy to whatever extent the given alternative makes both geopolitical _and_economic sense. Suppose we were able to waive a magic wand and make all fossil fuel burning machines in the US 100% compatible with ethanol. Suppose further that we could instantly increase domestic ethanol production to provide 100% of US energy needs. Then suppose we mandated that everyone in the US use ethanol so that we could say that the United States was "energy independent." Beautiful dream? Only if the unit cost of ethanol were quickly brought in line with the unit cost of fossil fuels. Otherwise it'd be economic suicide. And that's even if we had that magic wand to zero the transitions as I did above. It makes sense to have a coherent long term energy policy. But I'm begging everyone to please notice that energy independence does not equal liberation from the intricate web of the global economy. It would be a grotesque mistake for america to scare itself into adopting a goal like "energy independence" without VERY close regard to cost effectiveness. The only thing America really needs independence from is gross instability of price and supply. If the world reaches a point where America's survival really does depend on producing all of our own energy domestically, that's probably a world so utterly messed up that we're busy buying more guns, and stocking our shelters, and getting rich selling tinfoil hats. I sure hope it doesn't come to that. Make no mistake, there are various and ample reasons why America should seriously and even agressively investigate the current state of prospects for alternative energy sources. But anyone who wants to bumrush us down the path of massive ethanol production gets a "whoa big fella" from me. Posted by: bk at February 1, 2006 12:47 PMTully, While I understand that Compact cars have a higher death rate, part of that problem would be addressed if the overall fleet size were reduced. A bumper car would be suicidal on today’s highways but thrashing around at an amusement park with other bumper cars they are just good fun. And it's not as if the differences are huge. The fatality rate for subcompacts, according to the article you posted, is actually lower then of trucks and only 1.85 (per k) over SUVs. I find the safety argument thoroughly unpersuasive as a reason to reject efforts to legislate higher fuel efficiency. I can think of other, better arguments against the legislation of fuel efficiency standards, but that ain’t one of them. The fact is that the cars will get smaller as fuel prices rise no matter want the relative fatality rates are, they did in the 70’s and they will in the late 2k0s simply because fewer people will be able to afford to operate land yachts. The idea that we can solve the looming energy situation without pain or sacrifice is, in my opinion, naively optimistic. Posted by: Rick DeMent at February 1, 2006 01:44 PMCan we say President flip flop? While talking about the importance of education for young people the Bush administration proposed the first cut in overall federal education spending in a decade, with the reductions growing larger in subsequent years as part of deficit reduction. The 2010 budget would reflect a real decline of 14 percent below the 2005 level. What are these cuts paying for? Tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy and businesses, leaving the lower and middle class to pick up the slack yet again. The real funny thing I think is that the GOP congress will not go along with it, they'll be running away from it and George in November. It's an excel file and you can download an excel reader from Microsoft or get with the Open Source movement and download Open Office. Look at line 122 and see if that doesn't pop a vein in your head. Here's a clue: it's 50% larger than in 2001. Fiscal restraint? From the soon to be 2 trillion dollar deficit man? yeah.....we'll file away that one. Next to the rubber chicken and the "3 republicans walk into a gay bar" joke. Addiction to oil - any increase in fuel economy standards over the past 5 years? or ever since the GOP controlled the House? Not much. They kept trying to make cuts in alternative energy programs. Energy conservation was pooh-poohed as little more than "a sign of personal virtue." See above spreadsheet, line 30, for the decline in future funding for energy conservation. Elected officials worthy of public responsibility? So stop sonewalling about Plame, Katrina, 9/11, Enron, Abramoff, Downing St. memo, etc. Come clean George. The need for Congress and the White House to work "in a spirit of good will and respect for one another". Is he for real? When the GOP literally cuts out the Democrats from all but voting? When the Democrats were in charge the GOP was treated as partners in legislation. Conference committee meeting lockouts were practically unheard of. from the Boston Globe: No wonder the Democrats can't get to him, he's a moving target..... Posted by: Marcus at February 1, 2006 01:58 PMIn other news, wearing a t-shirt can now get you booted from the gallery, even if you're a Republican Congressmember's wife. Posted by: Blue Jean at February 1, 2006 02:06 PMIt was, as expected, pretty much more of the same. There were a few tacky moments, such as the Democratic response to his line about Social Security--I thought that bordered on rude, but I thought he recovered rather well. HRC didn't come across the best. I'm not sure if she forgot the cameras would constantly be panning to her for her reaction, but her response to Bush's line about President Clinton made her look like somewhat of a *****. It was a joke, Hillary! Lighten up. Between watching her and Santorum, I pretty much got my share of amusement. Santorum's like a little school boy--just cracks me up. Posted by: AR at February 1, 2006 02:11 PMThe t-shirt thing doesn't bother me. Sounds like simple policy, wear something with a political commentary in the gallery, you get booted. Pretty even handed to me. Only way to handle it. You can not do it any other way. Besides, wearing a t-shirt to the SOTU address is just plain tacky to me. Posted by: Jim M at February 1, 2006 02:26 PMThe fact is that the cars will get smaller as fuel prices rise no matter want the relative fatality rates are, they did in the 70’s and they will in the late 2k0s simply because fewer people will be able to afford to operate land yachts. Well, that's not necessarily a fact. IF it turns out to be true that fewer people can afford to drive them, THEN it's a fact. But rising prices only decrease the affordability rate (and so the sled purchase rate) if the prices are rising faster than our ability to afford things rises. Now even if gas prices rise quicker than inflation, affordability can be stable if other costs are rising more slower (like for say, phione service, tech products, etc). AND, there's also the issue of the gap between the idea of luxury and optional spending implied when talking about cadillacs and giant SUVs, and the reality of who purchases large vehicles and why they do it. There are undoubtedly some or even many Americans who buy a bigger nicer car just because they can. But lots of families buy bigger vehicles because in their minds they NEED those bigger vehicles. When someone believes they NEED something, it's more likely that they foind a way to afford it. Or, as economists would say more succinctly, history has so far show that demand really isn't very elastic. Posted by: bk at February 1, 2006 02:29 PMThe t-shirt thing frankly DOES bother me, so I'm glad that this chicken came home to roost immediately. Tacky shouldn't be grounds for ejection. As long as you are willing to sit politely and listen, and you got a ticket or did whatever qualifies you for attendance, you should be allowed to stay. And frankly, maybe more people would watch the SOTU if regular people got to attend and wear message t-shirts. Dog and Pony shows are boring. Democracy isn't supposed to be boring. Posted by: bk at February 1, 2006 02:35 PMI'm with the House Rules and decorum on this one. I listen to the SOTU to hear the President of the United States of America speak. I don't want to have to put up with every two-bit t-shirt criticism 24 hours a day at every single opportunity. Publish blogs. Given interviews. Picket the White House. Picket Congress. Fine, all those things you have a right to do. But when it comes time for our elected officials to be in session, actually doing things they are called upon to do by the Constitution, I'd like more of an adult atmosphere. It's hard enough to get our Congressmen to act like adults sometimes and engage in actual, reasoned argument instead of just name-calling and finger-pointing. Turning the observation gallery of Congress into a protest space would not help matters. Posted by: PatHMV at February 1, 2006 02:43 PMI guess I am just tired of the t-shirts that say things like FU and complete lack of class shown on them these days. My point is that if you allow something innocuous, you have to allow those too. Decorum is something that is already lacking enough as it is. A simple dress code that is fairly and equally enforced is not a problem for me. Besides, on Sheehan, she was stupid. If she really wanted attention, she should have sat there with the blouse on until Bush started to talk about the war and then take it off. Then the press would have had a field day with the disruption during the speech. I actually would have had more respect for that. Doing it before the speech just shows how clueless she is. I am sure that this forced the hand of having to remove the Congressmans wife too. If you only throw one out but not the other, you are trampling first amendment rights. By saying both are not allowed, you cover your legal bases. Posted by: Jim M at February 1, 2006 02:50 PMI'm torn on the Sheehan issue. I think she's in pain, and people do stupid things when they're in pain. But, I do have to ask myself. Why was she handcuffed and the rep's wife not? Why was she held, and the rep's wife not? The answer to those are simple. Cindy's more of a risk. MUCH more of a risk. So I really have little to no problem with what happened to her last night, although I expect the wingnuts to have a field day about her being oppressed. Now to play devil's advocate again; What about last year? As someone pointed out to me this morning, what about all those purple fingers last year, weren't those a display? Using the same logic, about political statements, shouldn't everyone flaunting a purple finger last year have been arrested? Posted by: StantheMan at February 1, 2006 03:07 PMThe rule on political-commentary clothing in the Capitol gallery has been around for quite a while. It wasn't the White House that put it there. The Congresscritters it was who insisted on maintaining standards of decorum in the chamber. They've got a point, and they certainly have the right to make those rules. And it's not as if the differences are huge. The fatality rate for subcompacts, according to the article you posted, is actually lower then of trucks and only 1.85 (per k) over SUVs. Go to the source report and re-check your assumptions, Rick. The death rate for fullsize-pickups is 2/3 that for compact cars, and that for large vans is 1/2. Doubling your chance of death is indeed a huge difference. The "equivalent" figures you cite are obtained by comparing the death rates for minipickups with subcompact cars. Bigger is simply safer. Note the radical dropoff in death rates moving up from compacts to midsize/fullsize cars. Same in the other classes--moving from small to large lowers death rates in all classes. The fact is that the cars will get smaller as fuel prices rise no matter want the relative fatality rates are, they did in the 70’s and they will in the late 2k0s simply because fewer people will be able to afford to operate land yachts. And when that happened in the '70s, death rates rose. Saying that mandating "fleet size" reductions will make the roads safer for small cars is the same as saying that you're going to eliminate the larger, safer vehicles to equalize death rates, at a cost in lives. Thereby penalizing those willing to pay more for extra safety, and rewarding those who trade off safety for operating cost. And death rates will still rise, because smaller vehicles are less safe overall. No matter which way you go there, you pay the price for "fleet downsizing" in human lives. Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2006 03:12 PMWhat if we mandate smaller trees, deer, telephone poles, walls and ditches? Perhaps we could mandate lower human inertia! Posted by: WHQ at February 1, 2006 03:31 PMLowering speed limits does mandate lower human inertia! Besides arguing about how unsafe a subcompact is kind of misses the point. If your gas rationing card says 10 gallons a week you drive the little car. Oops. That momentum, not inertia. I'm sympathetic with the virtues of decorum and civility, both in general and in this instance. However I'm still concerned that decorum can be used as a way to stifle dissent and isolate our leaders from genuine public input. Things such as the SOTU and the party conventions are becoming staged carefully crafted productions, and this is IMO one of the things driving the public's alienation. Now granted, I regularly complain about how noise drowns out what the real signal should be, and yet here I'm arguing for allowing noise. I'm for allowing noise if that makes it harder for one side's partisans to distort the signal. But I grant that there's utility to allowing the President one showcase opportunity per year to publically have his say and try to set an agenda while everyone listens. And it's fair enough given that NO ONE gets to wear a message t-shirt. So the point really is that while congress may have a right, it's still questionable as to whether they are right to do it. It looks bad that people are being dragged away...and it raises questions about what is really being stifled. What about, say, wearing a an aids ribbon or some other ribbon to symbolize support for something else? What if all the anti-war protestors advocated wearing a US flag pin on your right shoulder or a purple tie, to symbolize something or other. Would those people get dragged off, too? Posted by: bk at February 1, 2006 03:56 PMStan, I suspect it was because Ms. Sheehan made a fuss and refused to leave when requested, while Mrs. Congressman left quietly when asked to do so. Brian, as usual you want to have your cake and eat it too. There's a big difference between a quiet, discreet lapel pin and a t-shirt with great big letters on it. And you can't get more sane, rational debate if you don't stifle the disrupters, those not content to wait their turn to speak, to use their own forums, to courteously listen to the other side. Congress is where our REPRESENTATIVES and our SENATORS get to speak and spread their message, and, 1 night out of 365 in the year, so does the President. If Ms. Sheehan wants the right to make political speeches and demands in the chambers of the House of Representatives, then she can run for a seat. The House and Senate chambers are not "public forums" where everybody is entitled to have their say. They are there only for our elected representatives to debate and pass legislation. Posted by: PatHMV at February 1, 2006 04:20 PMExcept for members and employees, anyone in the Capitol chambers is there as a guest by invitation, not by right. I note that the President was also there last night by invitation, as a guest by custom, and not by right. And guests can certainly be summarily "disinvited" for breaches of decorum--they certainly are in my house. The rules of Congress are the will of Congress. If your gas rationing card says 10 gallons a week you drive the little car. So, Bob, you're advocating mandatory rationing in place of a free market? Sounds so...totalitarian. Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2006 04:44 PMTully, You need to re-read the article you linked to, I said subcompacts, which I found to be strange because Compacts are bigger then subcompacts. Here is the relevant text: Compacts had a fatality rate of 17.76 per 100,000 vehicles in 2004, followed by compact pickup trucks with 16.87 and subcompact vehicles with 16.85, according to a report Monday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Large vans had the lowest rate, 9.34, while pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles had rates of about 15 deaths. This article says that pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles have a fatality rate of 15.00 per K and subcompacts are 16.87, hell compacts are only 2.76 per k more which means that we are talking about some where in the vicinity of 200 deaths a year difference based on an overall fatality rate of 50 k per year. Hell, you would prevent more deaths by outlawing aspirin. I really think you not thinking this though Tully. You're basically saying we should hold up serious policy decisions because of a few 100 deaths per year that might be prevented by allowing more land yachts on the road. I mean if your all that serious about saving lives then put the speed limit down to 55 again, that way you save 1000’s more lives, not the hundreds we are talking about here and using less gas to boot. You could make roads much more safe by doing things like installing lights an all freeways (except just in cities), or making guard rails more crash friendly but we don't because it would be hugely expensive and it would not save all that many lives. The SUV safety argument is simply not sound logic, we make cost benefit decisions every day that “cost” lives, and we reject spending money on things that do not significantly increase safety every single day. If everyone in the US started driving Honda Civics there would not be a doubling of traffic falsities. The difference in lives “lost” due to fewer people driving land yachts is simply not a significant number. It’s a BS argument when you look closely at the absolute numbers. And you also seem to have skipped where I said: I can think of other, better arguments against the legislation of fuel efficiency standards, but that (marginal differences in fatality rates when the absolute numbers of deaths are looked at)ain’t one of them Posted by: Rick DeMent at February 1, 2006 04:55 PMJust to clarify, Sheehan and the Congressman's wife were dragged out in pursuance not of the House Rules - House Rule IV(6) sets the rules for the House gallery, and it says nothing about protest t-shirts - but rather, of 40 U.S.C. §5104(f)(2), which warns that "[a person or group may not] display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement". In terms of penalty, "[a] person violating [this provision], or attempting to commit a violation, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than six months, or both." Seems to me that, since she appears to have gotten off scot free, Sheehan ought to be considering herself lucky that America isn't, after all, the police state she thinks it is. Posted by: Simon at February 1, 2006 05:11 PMI read the article, Rick. And I read the source study, because of all the things the article obviously left out. I'll say it again. Read the source study. The paragraph you cite conflates together midsize and small vehicles and large with their figures in the truck and SUV categories. A "compact" pickup is about as lousy as a compact car, and the subcompacts aren't much better. Bigger is safer. Your "solution" is to get rid of bigger. Not even for safety purposes (obviously) but for social engineering purposes. The SUV safety argument is simply not sound logic, we make cost benefit decisions every day that “cost” lives, and we reject spending money on things that do not significantly increase safety every single day. I didn't say SUV, I said "bigger." Traffic accidents are the #1 cause of death for the age groups from 4 to 34. (The logic you're employing is as potent for the opposite argument as it is for yours, BTW.) In any case, the point is that people can make their own choices to improve their personal road safety, and you want to take that choice away from them, in some kind of macabre mandatory egalitarianism argument. Example: If I choose to drive a large van, I have half the chance of dying in a traffic accident than you do driving your compact car. Your "solution" is to remove the van from availability--taking away my free choice to make myself safer. For social engineering purposes, you're willing to double MY chances of dying in traffic. For my own good, of course. Gee, thanks! Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2006 06:00 PMThanks for the pointers, Simon. Personally, I think the removal of people wearing T-shirts to the State of the Union address should be handled by the Fashion Police. I mean, really. Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2006 06:08 PMNow the Capitol Police are saying they were wrong. Maybe its me; but is there anyone who works in that building that can do anything right? Capitol Police, as consistent as the members of Congress. Posted by: Jim M at February 1, 2006 06:46 PMPersonally, I think the removal of people wearing T-shirts to the State of the Union address should be handled by the Fashion Police. Where's Joan Rivers when you need her? In all seriousness, I'm not convinced that Mother Sheehan should have been allowed in the galleries in the first place. IMHO, the woman is slightly unstable. I don't say this mockingly--I say this with the utmost sympathy for what she has been through. But, I'm just not sure it was a good idea to let her anywhere near the President at this point. I just don't think her mental state is really all that healthy right now. What did Rep. Woolsey want? Her to throw herself off the balcony in protest? It certainly wasn't out of the realm of possibility. Posted by: Johnny R at February 1, 2006 07:00 PMThe Capitol Police were probably spanked by higher-ups. I saw the Deputy Sergeant at Arms doing the mea culpa mambo. But I kind of agree with Johnny. When someone has announced their intention to symbolically disrupt a speech from outside, and then they show up inside at the actual speech, the "presumption of innocence" tends to be, shall we say, thin? I mean, it's not on the same scale as bringing along John Hinckley on a day pass to a Reagan SOTU, but it's not something to ignore, either. And Mother Sheehan's stability is indeed a bit suspect. Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2006 07:45 PMThank you, Simon, Pat, and Tully, for clarifying the issue for me. While I'm sure that the Capitol Police were within their rights legally, it was the wrong thing to do politically. I agree with Brian; tacky is one thing, illegal is another. (Whatever one thinks of Ms. Sheehan's views, she's not a criminal, much less an attempted murderer.) Would there have been the same objections, say, if one of the Young Republican guests was wearing a t-shirt that said "BUSH ROCKS"? One of the sargeants-at-arms could have gone over to the women, quietly explained the policy, and offered them the choice of leaving or covering up with a jacket, etc. If either of them kicked up a fuss, then arrest her. To drag Ms. Sheehan out of the hall in handcuffs, simply for wearing a t-shirt, just feeds the general media story of a WH that can't handle criticism. (and plays to the Sheehan fans) It's true that Ms. Sheehan was released after a few hours, but the damage was already done. Posted by: Blue Jean at February 1, 2006 10:45 PMOops! My bad. Ms. Young was wearing a t-shirt that said "Support Our Troops Defending Our Freedom which answers my rhetorical question. It was still silly to arrest them, though. Posted by: Blue Jean at February 1, 2006 11:02 PMJean, the congressman's wife wearing the message shirt was not arrested, just asked to leave. I have been assuming that they asked Sheehan to leave and she raised a fuss, thus forcing the arrest, while the wife left when asked. Given that the Capitol Police are now in some strange damage control mode on the defensive for enforcing decorum, we may never know exactly why Sheehan was arrested and the other woman wasn't. My doubts for her sanity aside, I don't think that she was any real risk for violence, but I absolutely belief she might stand up and start shouting in the middle of the speech. P.S. I feel exactly the same way about all message t-shirts in the Congressional gallery, Republican or Democrat. I'm glad they tossed out the anti-Clinton t-shirt guy during the impeachment proceedings, too. Posted by: PatHMV at February 2, 2006 12:12 AMTully I don’t have to the read the entire report, the thing that you are not getting is that the differences in fatality rates are marginal between the various models of vehicles. The changes in actual numbers are so small that most people would be safer in the compact car then in any other kind of vehicle if they simply stayed off their cell phones, and paid attention to what they were doing. In any case, the point is that people can make their own choices to improve their personal road safety, and you want to take that choice away from them, in some kind of macabre mandatory egalitarianism argument. Gee whiz Tully, you do realize that the government had to force car companies to make equipment such as seat belts and air bags standard because people simply were not willing to part with the extra money to buy them when they were offered as optional equipment don't you? The idea that people buy large vehicular * primarily * because of safety features, is easily debunked by the simple observation that people buy large trucks and SUV hand and fist over large vans. If I choose to drive a large van, I have half the chance of dying in a traffic accident than you do driving your compact car. And my point is that 50% of squat is nothing. Look large vans aren’t all that popular, SUVs and trucks are the hot sellers adding more fuel to my point that people don't buy their vehicles based * primarily * on safety, if they did there would be more large vans on the road and the government would not have had to mandate seat belts (and pass laws to make people wear them) and air bags. Your assertion that this is some kind of high and mighty “freedom” argument is hilarious on it’s face. It reminds me of how concerned many conservatives become all of a sudden over the “safety of birds” when the subject of wind power comes up, it’s a BS argument. The small cars of today are twice as safe as similar sized vehicles 30 years ago. This is a BS argument because the government doesn’t have to increase fuel economy standards to get people to buy fuel efferent cars; all they have to do is slap a 1dollar a gallon gas tax and overnight, people will stop driving land yachts. The soccer mom vehicle of choice will go back to being the station wagon like it was when I was a kid instead of a 4 wheel drive, heavy duty monster SUV. This idea that fuel standards are some kind of communist plot to take away our freedom is the worst kind of political ideological noise I have ever heard and its fuzzy headed logic to boot and frankly I’m kind of surprised you buy in to it. As I said before: I can think of other, better arguments against the legislation of fuel efficiency standards, but the marginal differences in fatality rates when the absolute numbers of deaths are looked at ain’t one of them. Posted by: Rick DeMent at February 2, 2006 07:17 AMPat. Joe over at "The Moderate Voice" has the definitive column on the T-shirt controversy. Apparently, Ms. Young argued with the police and "got pretty colorful" but she was not arrested, while Sheehan was hauled off without a word in edgewise. (To be fair, the cops didn't seem to know it was Sheehan until they arrested her; she was just another anonymous potential protester.) It was still a silly thing to do, especially now. P.S. I know you're a fair man, Patrick, and even-handed, but I still think that the people should be warned (yes, even the guy in the anti-Clinton t-shirt) before they're bounced. They may very well stand up and shout something, but it would have been hard for them to be heard over the ovations, the speech, etc. And if she had stood up and shouted, then nobody would have argued with her being bounced. (not even me) Then she would have been the one with egg on her face, rather than the folks who arrested her. Posted by: Blue Jean at February 2, 2006 09:24 AMT-shirts are disruptive and lapel pins are not. OK Pat, I get it now. LMAO! Posted by: bk at February 2, 2006 09:36 AMBrian, you can't tell the difference between a 1 foot by 2 foot message on a t-shirt and a 1 inch by 1/2 inch lapel pin? You don't spot one much faster than the other when the camera sweeps the crowd? Jean, I'll defer to others on what actually happened with Ms. Sheehan. As for warnings, I think the warning comes when common sense should tell you that this event is not the time or place for that sort of thing. For an event like this, I'd rather keep somebody out when there is a real possibility that they would disrupt the program, even for just a moment, rather than wait and give them a chance. Note I said for an event like this. I'm not talking about every presidential appearance, every political event. Just events held within the chambers of the United States Congress. If any place should be identified with reasoned debate between those of opposing views rather than a shouting match, it should be that place. Yes, I know it is often not even when only Congressmen are there, but that is the ideal, and we should hold it up as such. Posted by: PatHMV at February 2, 2006 09:47 AMMaybe Rick and Tully should pitch in and buy a gas-electric hybrid large van. And Pat and Jean can buy each other t-shirts with the words "I have no strong opinion on any policy" to wear to the next SOTU address. I should probably just keep this stuff to myself, but I can help it sometimes. For such a dull speech, this turned out to be a fun thread to read. Posted by: WHQ at February 2, 2006 09:47 AMJean, other accounts suggest that Ms. Sheehan refused to comply when asked to come along, ignoring the officer. Which would lead directly and immediately to those handcuffs. Ms. Young argued after she left the Chamber, having complied when asked to come along. I note that the photo of Mother Sheehan shown along with her own story suggests her account on the same page is somewhat less than accurate. She claims she was dragged out with her hands behind her--the photo clearly shows her hands in front. She says she was handcuffed AFTER being removed from the gallery, at the elevators. The initial accounts say she refused to comply when asked to come along, was handcuffed, and was THEN removed, and the photo seems to show her handcuffed in front while still being removed from the gallery, with her jacket either still on one arm, or draped over it. This would be consistent with her being handcuffed while still seated. Had she been handcuffed while standing, the cuffs would be in the back. SOP. Whether she actually refused to comply and/or argued, or was simply cuffed and removed before getting her jacket all the way off or having a chance to comply, is something only the on-site witnesses can tell us, unless there's some direct video somewhere. But I don't have much reason to believe her account, when the photos show it's clearly inaccurate in some respects. I would've asked her nicely to come along, explained the perceived problem, and politely requested she turn her shirt inside-out before returning. Same with Ms. Young. I would NOT have relied on her promise to keep her coat zipped. And if there was any doubt on the call as related to standing orders, I woulda bucked it up the line to a superior--AFTER getting her out of the chamber. The first rule of security is "Better safe than sorry." Posted by: Tully at February 2, 2006 10:07 AMTully I don’t have to the read the entire report, the thing that you are not getting is that the differences in fatality rates are marginal between the various models of vehicles....my point is that 50% of squat is nothing Uh huh. Got it. You prefer ignorance and bullshit to dealing with the facts, so you refuse to check the facts, and dismiss them out of hand. 45 thousand deaths a year isn't "squat," it's the leading cause of death for ALL Americans between the ages 4 and 34, but to you that's marginal. By that logic, we no longer need worry about AIDS, which is even more "marginal" as a killer. As are murder and suicide. No point in trying to prevent any of them. Every year a thousand here, a thousand or so there, what's the diff? What's a little statistical variance, if a "greater social good" can be served? They're just marginal, after all. Oh, I got your point. Your point is wrong. Callous and intentionally ignorant and indifferent to very real human death and suffering. You're pompously rationalizing and ridiculing the REAL deaths of REAL people as being unimportant in order to bolster your social engineering argument. You won't even do the research to back up your argument--you just make the claim. And anyone pointing out that this social engineering depends upon removing or impeding safety choices through bans or taxes is simply thumping the Bircher anti-commie book. Gotcha. Lovely example of dishonest argumentation there, Rick. Posted by: Tully at February 2, 2006 10:58 AMCan you guys agree on well planned public transportation as a replacement for some segment of future vehicular traffic? Posted by: WHQ at February 2, 2006 11:26 AMSo what was up with Tim Kaine's eyebrows? Posted by: AR at February 2, 2006 11:28 AMGood question, Abel. I thought he was about to do the Vulcan nerve pinch, except that the brows were accompanied by the goofy smile-thing. Posted by: PatHMV at February 2, 2006 11:39 AMDo you think the dem response to the SOTU is too obscure of an object of derision for Saturday Night Live? I've been thirsting for a good eyebrow skit. Posted by: WHQ at February 2, 2006 11:39 AM"The idea that we can solve the looming energy situation without pain or sacrifice is, in my opinion, naively optimistic. " Rick, that's probably true. However, I don't think there is any need to ARTIFICIALY induce pain and suffering. It's not like the oil industry will be running at 100% output one day and the next day the spigot will be shut off completely. The way it works (as I understand) is that oil production will peak...and then as we start to exhaust natural reserves supply will GRADUALY decrease as it becomes harder and harder (and more expensive) to extract the remaining reserves. That will have the effect of NATURALY increasing the price of fuel (i.e. pain and suffering) and spurring people to conserve...no need for taxes and regulations to apply.... it'll happen all on it's own. Now I'm all for investing (including publicly funded projects) in the reseaerch and technology to lay the ground work for alternative energy sources and to improve fuel efficiency so that we are better prepaired for that day when it comes...and heck maybe we'll get lucky and hit a home-run with the technology so it need never come.... but I don't think there is any need to cause people to suffer before mother nature forces us too. ----------- As for the Sheehan controversy, I think the Congress does have the right to set thier own rules for decorum....including dress codes. But no one should be charged with a crime for failing to comply with them..... now refusing to leave the premisis if asked.... that's a different story entirely.... not sure what actualy happaned, as I wasn't there. At the same time, I think the use of things like "Free Speech Zones" and other strategems for removing peacefull protestors from the public eye during government sponsored events.... is OFFENSIVE to basic principles on which this nation was founded and to basic human dignity. Such tactics have been utlized in other administrations as well.... but the Bush administration (which I'm generaly supportive of) has been far too indlugent in it's use of them (IMO).
Brian, you can't tell the difference between a 1 foot by 2 foot message on a t-shirt and a 1 inch by 1/2 inch lapel pin? You don't spot one much faster than the other when the camera sweeps the crowd? Pat, you sound like you're worried about whether the people at home watching the speech might be disrupted. When you brought up "disrupted," I thought you were talking about whether the President would be disrupted while giving his SOTU speech. IMO, concern on this latter should focus on the behavior of attendees, and not their clothes. Standing up. waving flags. Yelling. Clapping. That's a very easy and clear place to draw a line. You are advocating arbitrary clothing standards. OK, so how big can your pin be, and can it include words or pictures? What about ties? Can they have words on them? What if I wore a 3 pices suit wool suit made of print fabric which included words? Does the language matter? What if it was just a URL? What if everyone organizing a symbolic protest just wore bright red clothes to, say, symbolize blood? What then? What if Cindy Sheehan or some other guest chose to wear a bright red dress with an asterisk on it, and only explained what symbolism she intended AFTER the speech? Would that be OK? Are you given ANY pause by the ease and speed with which I can generate a series of questions about what your arbitrary standards might include. Now Cindy Sheehan may have lacked imagination and guile and given people who didn't want her there an excuse to remove, but make no mistake that those people were prepared to take any port in a storm, and probably also ready to ask forgiveness instead of permission to get rid of her. But what would they have done if Sheehan did have a minimal amount of guile, and wore a sweater and only displayed the shirt by removing the sweater after being seated. What would have happened then? Note I said for an event like this. I'm not talking about every presidential appearance, every political event. Just events held within the chambers of the United States Congress. If any place should be identified with reasoned debate between those of opposing views rather than a shouting match, it should be that place. Yes, I know it is often not even when only Congressmen are there, but that is the ideal, and we should hold it up as such. Well, you can take consolation in the fact that you're not the 1st person to suggest to me that people wearing t-shirts are incapable of reasoned debate, and therefore occasionally deserve exclusion. Still, it disappoints me that congress agrees with you. Posted by: bk at February 2, 2006 01:03 PMWhy is this whole t-shirt business such a big deal? Someone decided her shirt was inappropriate, so security made her leave. They made a congressman's wife leave too for wearing a supportive t-shirt. If someone wears a pin and no one notices, are they still wearing a pin? Maybe these decisions are made arbitrarily. So what? It's their call. Posted by: WHQ at February 2, 2006 01:28 PMWe'll just have to agree to disagree, Brian... and I am relieved that Congress agrees with me. Posted by: PatHMV at February 2, 2006 02:35 PMNot so sure I'd boast about having the congress agree with you... Posted by: StantheMan at February 2, 2006 03:12 PMI always liked the crime of "contempt of Congress." Hey, darn near full-time guilty of that here.... Posted by: Tully at February 2, 2006 03:59 PM |
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Some Smart Surging
Democratic Disgrace Obama: Tastes Great or Less Filling Should United States Attorneys be Professionalized? Don't you dare change your mind! Erin Go Open Thread NCAA tournament thread Blog that Brouhaha to death, AMIIGAF! Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG) The Right Immigration Questions
|
