Berkeley Bubble

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:39:00 +0000

Mobile ESPN Shaun Alexander Incident

The Bubble Has Moved!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:54:00 +0000

The Berkeley Bubble has moved to a new home. The new URL for the blog will be at http://berkeleybubble.wordpress.com. I will keep posting here in the interim transition phase, but go check out the work in progress over at the new site and tell me what you think. In addition, this old site will remain up so that people can continue to link up to it and use it as a resource. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for your continued readership.

The Bubble is Moving!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 07:57:00 +0000

The Berkeley Bubble will be moving to a new home in a few weeks. The new URL for the blog will be at http://berkeleybubble.wordpress.com. I will keep posting here in the interim transition phase, but go check out the work in progress over at the new site and tell me what you think. In addition, this old site will remain up so that people can continue to link up to it and use it as a resource. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for your continued readership.

The Bubble Has Moved!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:35:00 +0000

The Berkeley Bubble has moved to a new home. The new URL for the blog will be at http://berkeleybubble.wordpress.com. I will keep posting here in the interim transition phase, but go check out the work in progress over at the new site and tell me what you think. Please update your links and blogrolls. In addition, this old site will remain up so that people can continue to link up to it and use it as a resource. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for your continued readership.

Breaking News: Texas Judges Orders Redrawing of Districts

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:15:00 +0000

Major news out of San Antonio--the three judge court has issued a redistricting order calling for CDs 15, 21, 23, 25, and 28 to be redrawn, and ordering new, winner-take-all elections, with the possibility of runoffs. The most significant news here is that Webb County, home to Laredo and a sizeable Latino voting population, will be unified in District 28, and a new District 23 (Republican Henry Bonilla's district) will be redrawn by adding chunks of San Antonio, and turning it into a toss-up race and free-for all. I'm going to analyze the map and update soon...

Commentary: Time for Plan B in Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:30:00 +0000

Thomas Friedman's latest article on Iraq finally acknowledges the failure of the Bush administration in attempting to reconstitute a new regime in Iraq. Friedman proposes that it's time for a plan B--and suggests that we should take a cue from the Bosnian case and organize some type of multi-factional conference. Here's more:

I think we need to try a last-ditch Bosnia-like peace conference that would bring together all of Iraq's factions and neighbors. Just as Bosnia could be solved only by an international peace force and the Dayton conference -- involving Russia, Europe and the U.S., the powers most affected by Bosnia's implosion -- the civil war in Iraq can be quelled only by a coalition of those most affected by Iraq's implosion: the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria and Jordan. As in Bosnia, any solution will have to be some form of federalism, a division of oil wealth and policing by an international force, where needed. For such a conference to come about, though, the U.S. would probably need to declare its intention to leave. Iraqis, other Arabs, Europeans and Chinese will get serious about helping to salvage Iraq only if they believe we are leaving and it will damage their interests.

I agree with Friedman on the need for a declaration on the part of the US that they are going to leave. But while I applaud his embrace of a mulilateral, international solution to the problem, I question it's viability. First, will a system of federalism and "division of oil wealth," policed by an international force, really work? On the surface, such a plan may ameliorate sectarian tensions and pacify certain insurgent groups. But I'm not sure the new Friedman-Plan B map of Iraq would promote stability in the region. It's likely that Iraq would be subdivided into a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, and a Shiite state. As if the Middle East couldn't get more complicated. But this type of federalism could easily buckle as Iran effectively turns the resulting Shiite state into a puppet of its own, backing another Hezbollah-like force there. From Israel's standpoint, this may mean that it's security is threatened by yet another nation-state linked to Iran. Friedman doesn't seem to think his federalism plan would help Iran, but rather stymie it:

Some fear that Iran will be the winner. But will it? Once we are out of Iraq, Iran will have to manage the boiling pot next door. That will be a huge problem for Iran. The historical enmity toward Iran by Iraqi Arabs -- enmity temporarily focused on us -- will re-emerge. And Iran will also have to compete with its ally Syria for influence in Iraq. Yes, the best way to contain Iran would have been to produce a real Shiite-led democracy in Iraq, exposing the phony one in Tehran. But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option -- the one Iran loves -- is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes.

I'm not sure I necessarily buy this logic. The only effective deterrent and counter-balancing leverage the US had against Iran was the presence of a secular regime in Iraq. And because we have now been occupying Iraq for almost 3 years, our very presence there and backing of one side has incurred the enmity of rival factions. So I don't think the solution here is to keep with a strategy of subdividing land plots in the Middle East every time there's a war. The solution is for the US to withdraw, so that the factions of Iraq can sort it out themselves, without US intevention or US backing of a particular regime. Friedman acknowledges that our withdrawal could eventually be a good thing:

What would be the consequences of leaving without such a last-ditch peace effort, or if it just fails? Iraq could erupt into a much wider civil war, drawing in its neighbors. Or, Iraqis might stare into this abyss and actually come to terms with each other on their own. Our presence may be part of the problem. It's hard to know.

So withdrawal is a good idea, accompanied by a multilateral conference and perhaps an international peacekeeping force like that being proposed for Lebanon. But subdividing it into multiple states is not the best solution. Just ask India and Pakistan about the British partition scheme of 1947, which has stymied the development of both nations and now set them on course to a permanent nuclear-arms-race.

Cheap Gas for Votes in NC? Larry Kissell for Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:10:00 +0000

CNN has a great video story about how Larry Kissell, who's running against Robin Hayes in the 8th congressional district of North Carolina, was offering voters gas at the price of 1.22 a gallon, the same price that gas was in 1988, when Hayes was first elected. Here's details on the event:

Join Larry Kissell, Democratic nominee for Congress in North Carolina's 8th District, this Thursday, August 3 from noon to 1 p.m. at Benjy Dunn's Filling Station in downtown Biscoe. Benjy Dunn's Filling Station is located at 103 West Main Street in Biscoe, near the stop light, right across from Kissell for Congress headquarters in Montgomery County.

Kissell's opponent is definitely not going to make the list of oil-free candidates:

Robin Hayes (NC-08) has taken nearly $250,000 from Energy Special Interests (1) and nearly $135,000 from Oil and Gas Interests (2) while voting for a final energy bill that gave away billions to Oil, Gas and Nuclear Industries (3). Hayes also voted three times (4) against cracking down on price gouging and lowering gas prices, and against giving consumers immediate relief (5) at the gas pump with increased investment in new energy sources like ethanol just last year.

When the Bush administration's not tackling an issue like soaring oil prices, its time for plan B. Looks like Kissell had a good one.

Commentary: Centrism Is For Suckers (Whither Zell Miller and Lieberman?)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:12:00 +0000

Paul Krugman's piece in the New York Times highlights an interesting argument--namely, that party identification matters much more than individual candidates' policy predispositions or leanings. To drive the point home, Krugman shows how Liberal groups, when they endorse "moderate" Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, actually do more harm than good to advance their cause, even though individuals like Chafee actually do support their interests:

"Now compare this with the behavior of advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group, both of which have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club’s executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, "We choose people, not parties." And it’s true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups. But while this principle might once have made sense, it’s just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party’s leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee’s personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the “R” after his name. Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility."

I think Krugman has a valid point here. He rightly notes in his op-ed piece that this kind of pragmatic, centrist politics really doesn't make sense given how intensely partisan Bush and the Congressional Republicans have become, and suggests that Dems need to almost take the same, blindly partisan approach to things or they'll never regain power and effect policy change. And Krugman's argument about Inhofe retaining control of the Enviornment and Public Works Committee is a valid one--what difference does it make to have "moderate" or "sensible" Republicans when the real power lies in the party leadership and committee chairs? One need look no further than Richard Pombo and his chairmanship of the House Resources Committee to see how devastating an impact one man can have on environmental protection. I know that many political historians have often pointed to the importance of centrists in the great debates of our time. One can recall the leadership of Henry Clay or even Stephen Douglas (if one buys David Potter's characterization of his leadership in "The Impending Crisis.") in times of crisis. When it comes to slavery, I for one, don't necessarily think that compromise for compromise's (and for the sake of the Union) was necessarily a realistic option, but that's a wholly different post. But the sad reality here is that this kind of centrist, pragmatic politics only works when you're operating in an era of weak parties or weak polarization. In the era of the Whigs--there really hadn't been a coalescing of two, solid national parties just yet, and the politics of compromise and pragmatism perhaps made more sense. And while there were glimpses of centrist politics in our recent past, the realignment of the parties has made centrist politics a fictional character--a myth. As the South realigned and and southern Dems became Republicans, there has been a slow decline in the number of centrist or moderate Republicans. There simply aren't many Republicans in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller--perhaps Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chaffee come the closest. Of course, the biggest empirical challenge for Krugman's argument comes from Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996, and what many point to as the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the centrist group that Clinton headed as a font of ideas for "new progressives," and from Joe Lieberman, who has bucked his party in Iraq. But in one sense, Clinton proves Krugman's point--Clinton's politics were actually the OPPOSITE of that of Bush and Rove, and actually set the tone for putting the politics of compromise and pragmatism ahead of partisanship. Clinton and his advisers perceived that this was the best way to capture and retain control of the White House, and maybe they were right. Just look at Clinton's embrace of welfare reform, a la Dick Morris' classic "Triangulation" strategy. There's no question here--Clinton moved his party to the center, and maybe to the right. But Bush and Rove have done the opposite and have moved their party AWAY from the center. And Lieberman has drifted with them into the nether world of the Iraq war. And I think there really is no going back to the politics of Clinton and the DLC, at least in the near future. The Dems cannot, nor should they, attempt to move more to the right or to the center anymore. For the ultimate example why they can no longer afford to do this, I point to the strange case of Zell Miller. Responding to claims that Zell Miller moved right because of the Dems' leftward drift, Michael Crowley of Slate Magazine argued that Zell Miller, once a favorite of Bill Clinton, Carville, and the DLC, basically (and perhaps inexplicably) morphed into a Republican:

This argument amounts to a basic truth wrapped in a major fraud. Democrats have tacked left in recent years (though more in tone than in substance). But Zell Miller has moved, too. Far from representing some lonely, abandoned Democratic center, Miller has become a cartoonish GOP partisan... Since then Miller has supported Bush on virtually every major Senate vote: No Child Left Behind, drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, the Patriot Act, the GOP Homeland Security Department plan, the Iraq war, and a partial-birth abortion ban. Two years ago, he stopped caucusing with Democrats and now meets each week with Senate Republicans. More than that, Miller churns out more elaborate anti-liberal invective than most actual Republicans. Earlier this year he published A National Party No More, a long indictment of effete Democratic values and the party's subservience to groups like NARAL and the trial lawyers. During the Democratic Convention last month, Miller agreed to be a member of a Republican National Committee "truth squad." And while just three years ago Miller praised John Kerry as "one of this nation's most authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders, and a good friend," today he belittles Kerry as "so out of touch with the average American it would be comical if it were not so dangerous."

I still remember watching the 2004 Republican National Convention, and Zell Miller's almost maniacal speech attacking John Kerry, the nominee of Miller's own prty, thinking to myself--this man has truly lost his mind. My thoughts were confirmed when I saw his exchange with Chris Matthews on Hardball immediately thereafter, and Zell Miller promptly challenged Chris Matthews to a duel on live television. (Chivalry is not dead, even if centrism is?) But this also confirmed to me that the politics of centrism and the DLC were officially dead, at least in the post 9-11 era of terrorism. And while I don't agree with the politics of purging centrists from our party, to win against Bush, Rove, and the GOP leadership, Democrats have to be realists and take firm positions on Iraq, Oil, and the environment. And if that requires electing Ned Lamont, so be it. There are simply too many Inhofe's and Pombo's to continue practicing the politics of cautious centrism.

Zell Miller Challenges Chris Matthews to a Duel

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:06:00 +0000

The link above requires internet explorer, so I'm posting the Zell Miller v. Chris Matthews face-off here. Enjoy!

Angelides Takes on Energy

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:54:00 +0000

So the Bubble has been encouraging Angelides to go after Arnold on blackouts and energy reform. And today, on Phil's website, voila! Angelides has unveiled a comprehensive energy plan that faults Arnold for not doing enough about rebuilding energy supply or conservation or oil prices. (Alas, I can't take credit here either--the date of the press release is July 25, 2006, while my article appeared on the 29th. But for some reason, I didn't notice the press release on the website until today.) Here's more from Angelides' press release: First, a great quote showing how deregulation messed up everything:

"Arnold Schwarzenegger promised us in 2004, ‘Trust me. Everything will be under control. Your lights will stay on.' And for three years, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been singing the music of California's deregulation scheme, thwarting efforts to create an environment that attracts clean power to California," said Angelides. "It's time to send a strong signal to the market that the failed deregulation experiment of Enron, George Bush, and the energy power pirates is over once and for all."

Next, an excellent statement about the Governor's inaction on energy:

The Governor's energy policy can be summed up in four words: Pray for Mild Weather," said Angelides. "Governor Schwarzenegger has put California's energy in the hands of the power barons who have been fined more than $5.3 billion for market manipulation. The result is a crazy quilt energy policy that is not working for California."

And now for Angelides's plan for energy--here are the main points:

* Within 100 days of taking office, unveil an action plan that will ensure the state has sufficient power with a 15 percent reserve - along with needed improvements to the transmission grid -- to provide adequate power to protect our families, our economy, and our businesses. * Reinvigorate the California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority to build and invest in new power plants if the utilities and energy generators do not, and to finance transmission improvements to protect us from price manipulation, gouging, and blackouts. The Authority would also finance large scale solar and renewable power projects to meet and exceed the state's renewable energy portfolio standards. * Name an energy czar to focus on attracting new renewable and gas-fired generation to the state and improve the state's energy efficiency programs.

Finally, Angelides would streamline the process by which new energy plants come online:

Angelides also said he would support legislation (AB 974) to streamline the electrical transmission facility permitting and siting process. The plan would address eliminating regulatory overlap, reducing review and approval times, and providing expedited review of transmission lines.

Again, I can't say enough about how important energy will be in the November election. But voters have to be constantly reminded of the link between Arnold and our energy problems. Right now, I'm still not sure that has sunk in--and it will take a series of campaign commercials in this last month of summer (timing is key here) to prime public opinion and set the tone for a second set of ads that remind voters of just how brutal the summer was.

Zell Miller's Speech to the 2004 Republican Convention (Daily Show)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:43:00 +0000

With inspiration from Paul Krugman's "Centrism Is For Suckers," I present to you coverage of the 2004 RNC and Zell Miller's speech, courtesy of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. (The speech coverage starts after thhe 4th minute).

More on Hillary's Call for Rumsfeld to Resign

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:32:00 +0000

I really think Hillary may be starting to get the frustration and anger most Americans are starting to feel over the deterioriation of Iraq, when she called for Rumsfeld to resign after the hearing yesterday, in which she relentlessly questioned and challenged Rumsfeld's handling of the war. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Hillary's change in position--or more precisely, her adoption of a position that so many other Democrats have held, took place on the same day that the Quinnipiac poll came out showing Lamont with a 12 point lead over Lieberman. This Clinton has shrewdly assessed the lay of the land, and concluded that an anti-war candidacy could effectively deny her the party's nomination in 2008. Now I'm not saying that Hillary's locked the nomination up. But if continues her leadership and aggressive questioning of the administration, and sharpens her position toward one supporting a withdrawal from Iraq, it may be difficult for an anti-war candidate to gain traction in the primaries in 2008.

Quick Poll--Dems in '08

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:41:00 +0000

Pat Robertson Now Believes in Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 07:18:00 +0000

And is no longer blaming it on the wrath of God, according to this report. It's about time. Is this some type of left-right convergence going on here? Imagine if the religious right aligned with Dems to push through legislation that would mandate higher fuel effiency and reduce fossil fuel emisisons. Now if only the President would sign on to this position.

What is the Extreme Left of the Democratic Party?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:33:00 +0000

Or where is it, to be more precise? I flipped to Hannity and Colmes just a few minutes ago to see a dialogue between Hannity and Senator McCain talking about the Lieberman-Lamont race, and something Hannity said really irked me. Hannity asked if he thought Lamont's strong showing in polls was proof that the "extreme Left" was taking control of the Democratic party. And while he said he couldn't second guess the internal politics of the Democratic party, McCain seemed to think that the "extreme Left" was playing an important role in the Connecticut Race. Now I know we throw the terms "extreme Left" and "extreme Right" around a lot, but what do these terms really mean? Extreme Right has been used to describe the politics of Tom Delay, and of Ralph Reed--it's been used to describe the politics of the religious right and of religious conservatives on issues like abortion, stem-cell research, and evolution. I take it that "extreme Left" refers to that wing of the Democratic party that's for withdrawing our troops out of Iraq before they are trapped in a never-ending civil war (if they are not already). But perhaps the term "extreme" is being used out of fear by the establishment and centrist candidates--fear that the people, through grassroots efforts, are voicing their will, their frustration, and yes, their anger with leaders who are out of touch with the pulse of America. Is it "extreme" to want almost 140,000 young troops to come home, so that the death toll of 2,500 troops doesn't continue to rise? Is it "extreme" to push for an end to our dependency on Middle East oil? To advocate for basic health care for all Americans, 45 million of whom don't have it? To press for expanded support for stem-cell research that could ultimately save the lives of millions, and improve the quality of life of millions more? To push for protection of our air, water, coasts, forests, oceans, natural resources, and integrity of the planet? And is it "extreme" to want an end to a reckless and bloody war between Israel and Hezbollah, in which civilians are being killed and wounded, a war that has forced close to a million civilians to flee Lebanon and become refugees of this war? The more I think about it, these positions aren't extreme at all--they are the hopes and aspirations of millions of ordinary, extraordinary Americans who ultimately all want the safe return home of our troops, peace and stability in the Middle East, policies that protect our environment and earth, and policies that protect our health and welfare. They may seem extreme to those in power--to those afraid of dramatic and radical change, but they're not extreme at all. So I'm not sure the term "extreme Left" really has any validity or useful application in our discourse. And in telling you where the extreme Left is located, I basically render the term meaningless-it's located in the grassroots efforts of countless millions who are desperately seeking change through electing new representatives and leaders. The only thing "extreme" in our county is the state of our foreign policy, of our domestic policy, and of our social and welfare policies--they are all extreme in neglecting the basic needs, rights, and aspirations of Americans, and of citizens all over the globe. Extreme is a term used by those in power to insulate themselves--indeed, protect themselves--from losing power. And if moderate centrists like McCain and Hillary can't understand it in '06, I've got news for them--neither one may win in 2008 as the "extreme" voter casts his or her vote for fundamental change. But Hillary's aggressive posture today in calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld is a promising sign that she's in touch with the frustrations and concerns of everyday Americans. And if she continues to assert this kind of leadership, there's no way that even John McCain can beat her.

Corker Wins Primary, Will Face Harold Ford in November

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:13:00 +0000

So we now have our GOP nominee for the Tennessee Senate Race. Fmr. Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker has won the Republican Primary with 48 percent of the vote, defeating Ed Bryant (35%) and Van Hilleary (16%). This will be a tough race for Ford, as Corker is the most moderate of the three Republicans and can attract moderate Democratic support. As noted earlier on this blog, Corker is very much a Republican in the mold of Lamar Alexander. An excerpt from the earlier post:

In a nice article on this race, Clay Risen of the New Republic notes the East-West cultural and political divide that exists in Tennessee, and how this shapes the character: "But Tennessee conservatism is different from, say, Alabama conservatism. West Tennessee is a culturally conservative place; but the state GOP's roots lie in east Tennessee, where voters going back to the Civil War have held conservative notions about government and the market while eschewing the reactionary cultural and racial politics that have beset other parts of the South. (In 1861 the region even tried to rejoin the Union after the state seceded.) East Tennessee has provided the country with such moderate Republican senators as Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander, and it gave Democratic senators like Al Gore Sr. and Estes Kefauver the political room to support the civil rights movement. And while solidly conservative, it is never a lock for the GOP--many east Tennessee voters crossed party lines in 2002, providing the winning edge for Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen."

So moderate candidates generally fare well in Tennessee. The race now is for the center. And as thispost notes, the latest Rasmussen head to head has Corker leading Ford by 12 points (though this may change, given that the public's attention was primarily on the Republican racem, and a glut of Corker ads all over the state, according to the post). A comment on this same post notes how crucial a Ford victory could be to gaining control of the Senate in a 51-49 split.

Angelides Endorses Proposition 89

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:41:00 +0000

According to SFBrianCL at Calitics, Angelides has announced that he will back Prop 89, the measure that would bring public financing to California elections. Now this is fantastic news, and what makes it even cooler is that it comes only 2 days after I recommended on this very blog that Phil endorse the measure. Check it out, I'm not kidding. While I can't take credit for this shrewd manuever on Angelides' part, I hope that people over at the campaign are at least reading this blog. As I reiterated in my earlier post--this move will allow Angelides to turn the tables on Arnold by claiming the mantle of "reformer." I quote liberally from my earlier post:

So how can Angelides unify and solidify this base of voters? Speak to issues on which they have common ground. And I think the key here is emphasizing a key theme on which Arnold did well on in his recall campaign (and then not so well in the 2005 special election)--reform. Reform How about backing Proposition 89--the proposal for public financing of elections? This would be the ultimate in pushing a "reform" agenda which Arnold championed during the recall election. Why not steal a page from Arnold and steal the thunder of Arnold's reformer-appeal? Unlike Arnold's "reform" agenda and support of certain initiatives in '05, which alienated and galvanized the unions and far left, Angelides would not face comparable backlash on this one. In fact, if corporate interests (the Chamber of Commerce, for example, which is probably already in Arnold's camp anyway) start attacking Angelides, this may actually raise his stock with the Democratic party faithful and rile them up enough to actually get them active and mobilized. As I wrote about in an earlier post, Arnold's support of the reform initiatives led to a rift and battle between unions and business interests, which ultimately hurt the proposals chances of winning, given that a well-organized coalition of nurses, labor, firefighters, etc. came together to defeat the initiatives.

In addition to stealing Arnold's reform "thunder" away, this move should galvanize union support and fire up the base. And as I note above, any "business" backlash will further reinforce in the minds of Democrats and others that Phil is the one who stands for reform. It draws a nice line in the sand and amplifies the contrast between the two candidates. Nice job Phil!

Tom Delay Must Remain on Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:48:00 +0000

Sweet. It looks like the "Hammer" will have his name on the ballot in his (old?) congressional district as he runs up against Nick Lamspon in TX-22. Voters will get a chance to finally vent their frustration with DeLay's oppressive remaking of Texas congressional districts--I like this San Antonio article's take on it:

So, Tom DeLay, the former bug exterminator-turned-U.S. House Majority Leader, raised millions — a lot of it from corporations — and spent it to turn key Texas House seats over to Republicans who would do his bidding with regard to redistricting.

Hopefully Lampson can pull this one out.

Why Bill Clinton Isn't Boosting Lieberman's Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:33:00 +0000

Lamont is pulling ahead of Lieberman in today's Quinnipiac poll, 54 to 41 percent. It's pretty clear that the momentum has dramatically turned, and has done so since July. I'm not sure I can remember a Senate race where an incumbent with a couple of terms under his belt has his fortunes turn so fast in a primary. The real question I want to answer is why Bill Clinton's endorsement and recent visit to the state on behalf of Joe isn't making all that big a difference. Of course, the immediate answer may be that the true effect of the Clinton endorsement still hasn't shown up in this poll, given that Clinton visited the state on July 24th, a little more than a week ago. But honestly, I personally doubt that. Clinton came and personally delivered a speech alongside Lieberman, personally endorsing Joe. (Now why Clinton bothered to do this is beyond me--this is the same Lieberman who leaped at the opportunity to condemn the former President over the Lewinsky scandal). Personal politics aside, the real reason Clinton was out there defending Joe was because his personal legacy, along with his contribution to shaping the policies of the DLC, are now on the line and being called into question in the state of Connecticut. What's interesting about this race is that is has become a battle between the ghosts of the DLC and the specter of a prolonged, out-of-control Iraq War. A tussle between centrists who don't want to appear "soft" on national security, and Democrats who see a country that's completely lost its way in foreign policy. And this is why Clinton's speech and visit are having so little of an impact on a race. When it comes to the Iraq War, the DLC has lost credibility, and public opinion on Iraq is no longer wavering--it's stabilizing in intensity and coalescing around a candidate in Ned Lamont. The recent poll shows that 85 percent of voters have made up their mind, with only 5 percent undecided. So not even Bill Clinton can defeat the views and opinions that Lamont now represents. But perhaps the more interesting footnote here maybe that this "first test" for the DLC and Clintonism in 2006 does not portend well for Hillary's chances in 2008--hence Hillary's cautious avoidance of providing too visible a presence in this race. Hillary doesn't want a Lieberman defeat to be viewed as a preview of things to come in the 2008 primary. Unfortunately for Hillary, and for Bill's legacy, that's exactly what would happen. A Lamont victory would embolden Democrats who oppose the Iraq war and support withdrawal to mobilize at the next level in '08, and pool together their net-roots and grassroots support to back a candidate who has and will oppose the Iraq war and support immediate withdrawal. And that's another reason why Bill was there with Joe. He was trying to reinforce Hillary's chances in 2008, fortifying the increasingly obvious breaches in the cautious, centrist campaign that's she's starting to run.

Iraq in a Civil War, while Bush and Rumsfeld in Denial

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:32:00 +0000

With Democrats now united behind a single position on Iraq, the relative confusion and uncertainty within the administration and the Pentagon on a plan for Iraq are now becoming clear. These folks simply don't have a clue. Just look at the news articles today on Iraq. Rumsfeld and Bush refuse to recognize that Iraq is now caught in a civil war, and continue to repeat the same tired old line about how leaving Iraq would embolden terrorists:

President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have refused to call the worsening violence a civil war, but Rumsfeld, in often tense exchanges with senators, warned against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq prematurely. "If we left Iraq prematurely as the terrorists demand, the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us and all those who don't share their militant ideology to leave what they call the occupied Muslim lands from Spain to the Philippines," he said.

Okay, so that's what the commander-in-chief and Defense Secretary say. No civil war--don't worry, Americans. What do their top generals say? Iraq is basically sliding toward civil war:

"Sectarian violence probably is as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular," Army Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate hearing. "If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

And check out this acknowledgement about how quickly things have turned for the worse in Iraq in only a year:

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, the most senior U.S. military officer, also said there was a "possibility" of civil war in Iraq, where the violence has claimed about 100 lives a day. Asked whether he would have seen a chance of civil war a year ago, He replied, "No, sir."

In the same Washington Post article, General Abizaid says that the recent surge in sectarian violence makes it more unlikely that we'll see any immediate troop reductions or withdrawal. Translation: We can't pullout because Iraq is sliding into civil war. Great. (FYI, I have to say I love an ad banner slogan I've seen on my site today--"At Least in Vietnam, Bush had an Exit Strategy." Great stuff--I can't click on it, but all of you should). I've got news for all of you. The presence of US troops ain't goin' to make things get better--look how badly things have gotten with our troops on the ground already. And I don't know about you, but I don't to leave our young men and women trapped in a civil war amidst multiple sectarian factions where they can't even tell who is enemy and who is friend. Today, Kos eloquently rebuts those who criticize campaigns that are making Iraq the single, central issue of this campaign cycle, noting that the recent Gallup poll now shows that 55 percent of Americans support troop withdrawal by year's end. The key question now becomes--will centrist Democrats like Hillary take the cue and support immediate troop withdrawal. If I were advising Hillary, I'd tell her such a move could virtually guarantee her the party nomination. Hillary has cautiously attacked Rumsfeld over his administration and execution of the war, but why not take it to the next level?: Democrats, trying to regain control of Congress from Republicans in elections in November, have made Rumsfeld a prime target of criticism over the handling of the war.

"Because of the administration's strategic blunders and frankly the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy," said Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, a possible 2008 presidential candidate. "Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?"

The leading candidate who ultimately gets out in front of this issue and supports a withdrawal of troops out of Iraq could take the lead in '08 and never look back. Al, we're still waiting...

This Guy Rules

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:37:00 +0000

Check out the picture of this guy sitting on his front porch, relaxing with a puppy on his lap. The guy looks really happy, and why shouldn't he be--he's not working, and has no immediate plans to do so. Seriously, though, this Times article details a growing trend among American males age 30-54--namely, that they won't work because the only jobs available are beneath their skill set/experience or are demeaning. FYI, the guy in the picture's name is Alan Beggerow. The article reports that 13 percent of men this age group are not working, which is up from 5 percent in the 1960s. Here's more:

Many of these men could find work if they had to, but with lower pay and fewer benefits than they once earned, and they have decided they prefer the alternative. It is a significant cultural shift from three decades ago, when men almost invariably went back into the work force after losing a job and were more often able to find a new one that met their needs.

The article reports that 30 something former dot-commers are relying on former savings and pension packages to survive, while others are relying on borrowing against their own homes and from support from the Government, like Christopher Priga, a former Xerox exec who used to pull six figures:

Mr. Priga supports himself by borrowing against the rising value of his Los Angeles home. Other men fall back on wives or family members. But the fastest growing source of help is a patchwork system of government support, the main one being federal disability insurance, which is financed by Social Security payroll taxes. The disability stipends range up to $1,000 a month and, after the first two years, Medicare kicks in, giving access to health insurance that for many missing men no longer comes with the low-wage jobs available to them. No federal entitlement program is growing as quickly, with more than 6.5 million men and women now receiving monthly disability payments, up from 3 million in 1990. About 25 percent of the missing men are collecting this insurance.

The article also reports that a lot of these men rely on their spourses are girlfriends for income support. But often, this doesn't work, and forces men to eventually end up as single:

Sometimes women who are working throw out men who are not, says Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania. In any case, without a household to support, there is less pressure to work, and for men who fall behind on support payments, an incentive exists to work off the books — hiding employment — so that wages cannot be garnisheed.

One other interesting note, the trend toward men not working has a distinctly southwestern and southern flavor to it--the five states with the highest joblessness among this age demographic in males are Arizona (7.7%), New Mexico (7.3%), Louisiana (7.2%), Kentucky (7.1%), and West Virginia (6.6%). While I don't want to be the sultan of gloom on this one, I do have to point out that this trend could have long-term repurcussions on the economy--if a lot of these guys are basically depleting their savings and/or borrowing against equity in their homes or taking out second mortgages, the net savings rate in this country will continue to drop precipitously. And that'll only lead to a further decline in investment, which will impact negatively on future growth. But hey, it's a free country. I seriously sympathize with those men who can't find jobs that match their experience and skill levels. If only blogging paid more...perhaps the government can start new subsidy progam?

Play Delay's Dollars

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:54:00 +0000

Lampson has a great game on his website--check it out here.

Solar Powered Houses and Laundromats

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:36:00 +0000

I really think that solar energy is the way to go when it comes to the search for alternative clean fuel sources to oil. Two interesting cases to relay to all of you... First off is the Maine Solar House. Yes, solar power is viable even in wintry Maine, and this house is basically completely self-sufficient in its energy production--so much so that the House sometimes generates excess energy which it then feeds back into the power grid. The family who owns the house also have biodiesel and hybrid autos. This suggests a decentralized model for energy conservation and generation, one in which the government should incentivize indivdual homeowners to install solar cells. For more on the House, you can go here. Next up, is a story on a solar laundromat in a Chicago suburb, as reported here on Tangledwing. This solar laundromat uses solar cells to provide hot water to the laundry 24 hours a day. I encourage you to check out this post and article.

DailyKos Gives Props to Article on Arnold, Angelides and Prison Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:55:00 +0000

And the Bubble gladly reciprocates the props back. My post on Arnold, Angelides, and prison reform came up on the diary rescue post for today, and I'm glad some people found it informative and useful. Here's the link to the actual diary entry up on DailyKos. It got some great feedback and comments, and I encourage you to read people's responses to the post. And for the original, original article on this blog, you can click here.

India Bans Child Labor

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:57:00 +0000

This issue is definitely close to my heart, as I have seen countless number of children working in the cities and slums of India. Thankfully, the Government today banned the employment of children under the age of 16 "as domestic servants or at hotels, tea shops, restaurants and resorts," according to this report. The presence of child labor is accepted by many Indians as a sad reality, as children often work to supplement their families' income--often, parents and their children all work in the same households. But while they bring additional income to their families, there is also a much darker side to it, according to the government:

"The committee...while recommending a ban on employing children in these occupations, had said that these children are subjected to physical violence, psychological trauma and, at times, even sexual abuse," a government statement said, referring to the Technical Advisory Committee on Child Labor. "These children are made to work for long hours and are made to undertake various hazardous activities severely affecting their health and psyche," it said, in a statement released late on Tuesday.

Apparently, under the previous law, the 1986 Child Labor Act, children were already banned from working in hazardous trades. But as usual, the main problem in India isn't the presence of legislation, it's a problem of implementation and corruption. And part of the difficulty lies in policing the millions and millions of homes where children work as domestic servants.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) welcomed the ban but said its implementation was a challenge, as many of the children worked in homes and away from public view. ``Children working at homes or in eateries have very long hours and face isolation, and are far away from support systems,'' said Leyla Tegmo-Reddy, ILO's India representative. ``Often, these children take care of more privileged children, seeing the world that they don't have.''

So enforcement is a major problem for the government, which faces many obstacles in monitoring child labor in domestic settings:

Labor ministry spokesman M.L. Dhar said children working as domestic servants and in street restaurants, were vulnerable because crime against them often went unreported. ``For children working in houses, it is an difficult area (to investigate) as there is a question of privacy of people living there,'' Dhar said. ``But the government will evolve some methods.''

Personally, I think the key to bolstering enforcement requires a sizeable investment in the legal rights infrastructure in India. Thousands of lawyers need to be trained to go out into cities and the countryside to help enforce these laws on the books. And these teams of lawyers need to be teamed with one or two police officers to ensure that they have the imprimatur and force of law behind them, so that they can actually go through the courts and effectuate court orders. Of course, there's also some corruption in the courts (at the lowest level, not in the High Courts or Supreme Court) that needs to be addresed here. If you're interested in getting involved to help stop child labor in India, visit Save the Childhood Foundation. For more information on the ILO visit ILO's website.