Werthless wrote:I don't know if any of this makes sense, or is being seen through twisted lenses, but some folks on another board seemed to like this articleabout Pakistan/Afganhistan.

I have been to war with Pashtun and have seen their legendary courage, strong sense of honor, and determination. They are also hugely quarrelsome, feuding, prickly, and notorious for seeking revenge.

swishnicholson wrote:Anyone who can write or read a sentence like that in the 21st century without laughing out loud is clearly simple or deceitful. It is true that America's goals in this region are not the same as Pakistan's goals and the sooner the US can extricate itself having sufficiently accomplished its goals the better, since it is in sense in league with the devil. But in comparison to Iraq the US goals are very well-defined and while at some point the cost-benefit ratio will dictate a withdrawal the level of prickliness of the Pashtun shouldn't have the least bit of consideration.

dajafi wrote:California comes to the belated realization that instant gratification isn't really a great way to do governance.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:California comes to the belated realization that instant gratification isn't really a great way to do governance.

In recent decades, constitutional reform at the state level has been extremely difficult to pull off. It'll be done by so-called good government groups, with a plethora of non-partisan this and non-partisan that, and nothing will happen. You need a strong party system to ram something like this through.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:California comes to the belated realization that instant gratification isn't really a great way to do governance.

In recent decades, constitutional reform at the state level has been extremely difficult to pull off. It'll be done by so-called good government groups, with a plethora of non-partisan this and non-partisan that, and nothing will happen. You need a strong party system to ram something like this through.

If this is true, I would think it has to be a certain kind of "strong party system"--probably characterized both by centralization within the parties and competitive elections as a rule rather than an exception. In my understanding, neither is true in California: the state has been gerrymandered to a degree that would make Tom DeLay drool, and (largely as a result of this) it seems that both the state and federal legislators are more at the political extremes than in the middle.

The irony is that there's obviously an appetite in California for centrist governance--otherwise you wouldn't see the likes of Schwarzenegger and Feinstein winning statewide races.

Nothing excites our media stars more than saluting and fetishizing the President as a "War President" and "Commander-in-Chief" (David Broder today, in his column entitled "Obama in Command": Obama is "continuing, with minor modifications, the policies and practices of his Republican predecessor . . . . Obama's liberal critics are right. He is a different man now. He has learned what it means to be commander in chief"). But isn't the phrase "war president" a complete redundancy when it comes to the U.S.? Which American presidents were not "war presidents"?

Bill Clinton presided over his war in the Balkans and various bombing campaigns in Iraq ("Operation Desert Fox"), Afghanistan and the Sudan; Bush 41 had his war -- the glorious Desert Storm -- against Iraq, which followed his intrepid invasion of Panama; Reagan conducted his various secret wars in Central America and got his direct war glory by invading Grenada and by bombing Libya (heroically taking out the infant of that country's leader); Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were all "war presidents" in Southeast Asia; Truman and Eisenhower both presided over the Korean War and the Cold War. I suppose Jimmy Carter may be one of the very few Presidents to whom the label may not apply, since our military involvement during his four post-Vietnam years was of the indirect kind, though even Carter presided over the attempted military rescue of American hostages in Iran and the peak of the Cold War. And I've omitted far more American military actions from this list than I included.
...
In other words, there's no such thing as an American President who is not a "war President." We never go more than a few years without some kind of a direct war, and are always waging covert and indirect ones. American presidents are inherently "war presidents." We don't really have any other kind. To vest a specific power in a President on the ground that he's a "War President" is to vest that power in presidents generally and permanently.

That's why this media construct that things are different for "war presidents" -- we have to give "war presidents" greater power and leeway; demand less transparency and accept more secrecy; acquiesce to abridgments of civil liberties when "America is at war"; and, coming soon under the Change banner, allow them the right to imprison people indefinitely with no trials even beyond "war zones" -- is so manipulative and misleading.

Three weeks ago, my friend Senator Arlen Specter added one more feat to his long and impressive career -- he became a Democrat.

Over the years, we've certainly had our disagreements. During that time, however, Arlen has been my friend, my confidant, and my partner in enacting many pieces of significant legislation.

Learn more about Senator Specter's long record of achievement.

Find out more about Senator Specter

For more than 25 years, we've ridden the train together back to Wilmington and Philadelphia. We've had some great debates and discussions on the train -- and gotten to know each other so well -- that it gives me great pleasure to be able to work even more closely with Arlen now.

His independence, integrity, and piercing intellect will continue to be a tremendous asset to the people of Pennsylvania, and now, to the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

I know that he'll keep up his great work on issues ranging from cancer research funding to global warming, deficit control to immigration reform -- and in our coming debate to reform America's health care system.

Thousands of you have already written messages of support, welcoming Arlen to the party, and he was tremendously pleased to receive them.

I know that once you come to know him like I do, you'll be just as happy as I am to have him.

Find out more about Senator Specter's career of service for the people of Pennsylvania:

http://my.barackobama.com/Specter

Thanks,

Vice President Joe Biden

The cost of this will be passed on to consumers. Overall, ordinary Americans will endure price hikes just as severe as they would have under Mr Obama’s plan, while receiving far less compensation. Mr Viard likens giving permits to polluters to handing the proceeds of a tobacco tax to the shareholders of Philip Morris.

.....

Ideally, politicians who want to save the planet would be honest with voters about how much this will cost. But America’s leaders do not seem to think Americans are ready for straight talk about energy.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:California comes to the belated realization that instant gratification isn't really a great way to do governance.

In recent decades, constitutional reform at the state level has been extremely difficult to pull off. It'll be done by so-called good government groups, with a plethora of non-partisan this and non-partisan that, and nothing will happen. You need a strong party system to ram something like this through.

If this is true, I would think it has to be a certain kind of "strong party system"--probably characterized both by centralization within the parties and competitive elections as a rule rather than an exception. In my understanding, neither is true in California: the state has been gerrymandered to a degree that would make Tom DeLay drool, and (largely as a result of this) it seems that both the state and federal legislators are more at the political extremes than in the middle.

The irony is that there's obviously an appetite in California for centrist governance--otherwise you wouldn't see the likes of Schwarzenegger and Feinstein winning statewide races.

allentown wrote:Virtually every state has been gerrymandered to create primarily seats that are safe for the incumbent, barring severe scandal. We have the worst of both worlds with the House. The chamber that is supposed to be 'close to the people' because it runs every two years and represents a relatively small population, is in reality in constant election mode, but highly unrepresentative, since a credible challenge to a sitting Representative is so rare.

kruker wrote:

Three weeks ago, my friend Senator Arlen Specter added one more feat to his long and impressive career -- he became a Democrat.

Over the years, we've certainly had our disagreements. During that time, however, Arlen has been my friend, my confidant, and my partner in enacting many pieces of significant legislation.

Learn more about Senator Specter's long record of achievement.

Find out more about Senator Specter

For more than 25 years, we've ridden the train together back to Wilmington and Philadelphia. We've had some great debates and discussions on the train -- and gotten to know each other so well -- that it gives me great pleasure to be able to work even more closely with Arlen now.

His independence, integrity, and piercing intellect will continue to be a tremendous asset to the people of Pennsylvania, and now, to the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

I know that he'll keep up his great work on issues ranging from cancer research funding to global warming, deficit control to immigration reform -- and in our coming debate to reform America's health care system.

Thousands of you have already written messages of support, welcoming Arlen to the party, and he was tremendously pleased to receive them.

I know that once you come to know him like I do, you'll be just as happy as I am to have him.

Find out more about Senator Specter's career of service for the people of Pennsylvania:

http://my.barackobama.com/Specter

Thanks,

Vice President Joe Biden

dajafi wrote:

allentown wrote:Virtually every state has been gerrymandered to create primarily seats that are safe for the incumbent, barring severe scandal. We have the worst of both worlds with the House. The chamber that is supposed to be 'close to the people' because it runs every two years and represents a relatively small population, is in reality in constant election mode, but highly unrepresentative, since a credible challenge to a sitting Representative is so rare.

That's true, but I think CA is worse than most--at one point (because at my worst, I actually can rival jerseyhoya for geekery on this stuff) I looked at the partisanship scores of the CA House members, and they were almost all bunched at the extremes.

To his credit, Ahnuld wanted to put redistricting in the hands of a nonpartisan entity. If the parties are determined to protect their incumbents, though, this is obviously an uphill climb.

dajafi wrote:Sure. DeLay guessed that the partisan ID trend was with him to a point where he could take districts that were, say, +15 and +5, and make them both +10. My sense is that CA is much more inclined toward really, really safe seats. They've had a few change hands--Richard Pombo's is the one I remember--but not many.