Political Bloviation

In case you missed it a few weeks ago:

YouTube – Epic beard man.

67 year old white dude (Beard Man) insults a younger black man (Corn Rows) by asking him how much he would charge to shine his shoes. Admittedly, that could be construed as a racist remark by anyone. Jesus might have tried to pimp slap the guy. After exchanging some words Beard Man moves away to the front of the bus. They continue to insult each other. Corn Rows follows Beard Man to the front presumably to “put my foot up your ass”. At about 1:40 into the video he takes a swing at Beard Man. Using a clean, straight left and right hook combination that would be at home in a UFC fight Beard Man administers a beat down. After some “ground and pound” the fight is over Corn Rows says what sounds like “Bring an amber lamps” (ambulance?) presumably because he’s bleeding profusely through the nose.

The internet responds magnificently with a mash-up.  I caught this on Tosh.0 the other night:

Remember boys and girls, you should never, ever try to put your foot up the ass of a much bigger, somewhat disturbed, racist Vietnam veteran on an BART bus wearing an “I AM A MOTHER FUCKER” tee shirt. You might get your ass kicked and need an “amber lamps”. Then you might get creatively mocked on the internet to the tune of catchy southern rock version of an old Lead Belly song. Here’s your 15 minutes of fame dude, enjoy. You’ve earned it!

PS.  I don’t condone the inherent racism displayed by Beard Man. But Corn Rows did swing first, probably thinking he could beat up an old man. Also, I don’t think the origins of the Song Black Betty are racist. It seems that Black Betty was either slag for a liquor bottle or a flint lock musket.

Here’s a post on a development in an ongoing case brought by a couple of private military contractors who allege imprisonment in a US military facility and torture for blowing the whistle on illegal arms trading inside Iraq by their employer Shield Group Security. It appeared that SGS was selling arms to insurgent groups at a tidy profit:

Sensen No Sen: Puckering Mr. Cheney.

Back in 2006, I wrote a post entitled A Nation of Hypocrites that focused on the case of Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, private military contractors working in Iraq.  The two men uncovered what appeared to be illegal arms dealing by their employer, Shield Group Security, and reported it to outside authorities.

The result? Mr. Ertel and Mr. Vance, a Navy veteran and two-time voter for George W. Bush, were disappeared into a military prison without access to the outside world and without judicial review. Mr. Ertel was released after 6 weeks, but Mr. Vance was held for 97 days.  His family had no idea what had happened to him – his fiance believed he had been killed – and both men allege that they were tortured. It is only because the military deigned to release them – with implied threats that they’d better keep their mouths shut – that they are today free men.

Mr. Ertel and Mr. Vance brought suit against the military and against Bush Administration Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, focusing on three areas: cruel and inhumane treatment; violation of procedural due process; and denial of access to the courts.  Lawyers for Secretary Rumsfeld filed a motion to dismiss the suit, and on Friday, U.S. District Judge Wayne Andersen voided the second and third counts.  More importantly however, Judge Andersen also ruled that the former contractors had alleged enough specifics to warrant a hearing of evidence on the first count of cruel and inhumane treatment.

That last sentence should give both Rumsfeld and Cheney some pause. The defense describes the judges ruling:

Judge Refuses to Dismiss Suit Against Rumsfeld- Blog of Legal Times, Mike Kanovitz

Essentially the judge held that there is a constitutional violation for the types of brutality that are alleged in our complaint, and that someone who is even as high ranking as a Cabinet official can be held liable for that constitutional violation if he authorizes subordinates to commit that type of violence. Furthermore, the court held that even though he is a high placed official, the pleading requirements that apply to any defendant and any plaintiff are the same ones. And even though it requires a high amount of specific evidence for holding him liable, there’s enough evidence in the complaint that he did authorize this type of violence to be sufficient to force him to answer for these actions in a court of law.

Perhaps I am naïve to believe that powerful will ever answer for their crimes in this country. Even when they admit on national television that they “fans of waterboarding” in the context of ordering subordinates to use “enhanced interrogation techniques”** on detainees.

I think that down the road, when our children look at this phase of our history, they’ll see Mr Bush’s “War on Terrah” as a clear violation of America law and values. Something akin to the internment of the Japanese during WWII or Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War. Both of those previous examples involved much greater threats to the existence of this nation. Al-Qaeda, and it’s murderous thugs weren’t then and aren’t now an existential threat to the US. But our reaction to them most definitely is.

Our detainee policies, which sadly seem to be getting institutionalized as standard operating procedure despite empty campaign promises by Obama, have done more to recruit and fund terrorism than just about anything else we could have done. The stated aims of attacking us, was to get a reactionary response from the west that would open the flood gates to help mainstream violent jihad against the west among moderate Muslims. We did exactly what they wanted and  Al-Qaeda blossomed and morphed into the hydra-headed monster it is today.

I had hoped that a constitutional law professor would find some value in defending the Constitution, but Obama has consistently disappointed. He gave lip service to closing Gitmo early on, but has not followed through. Any opposition from right and he backs off. All I’ve seen is timidity and cowardice from him, when it comes to defending the Constitution.

I suppose one could argue that a sitting President would rarely, if ever, agree to voluntarily limit executive power and that is properly the role of the judiciary. Sadly, the federal courts from Supreme Court to the Appellate Courts, the District courts and career DOJ positions have been stacked with  “Good Bushies” who share the Yoo worldview of limitless executive power during times of war. And of course the “War on Terrah” has no end in sight, we’re essentially in a perpetual state of war.

Limitless executive power emanating from endless state of war, coupled with electronic surveillance unencumbered by meaningful judicial review. That sounds just like the optimum conditions for tyranny at the whim of the President. I didn’t trust Bush with that kind of power. I don’t trust Obama, or anyone else I can think of either. It’s not a partisan issue. This is a much greater threat to the underpinnings of American society than anything cave dwelling suicide bombers on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border can do to us.

**The phrase “enhanced interrogation” is rendered in German as “Verschärfte Vernehmung” and was favored by the Gestapo as softer term to cover the torture of resistance fighters and their supporters in German occupied areas. What the Bush administration approved of is identical to tactics used by Nazis and prosecuted during the Nuremburg Trials as war crimes. This is not to say that I think Bush is a Nazi, but that what we as a nation did and continue to ignore was by any reasonable definition torture.” Calling it “enhanced interrogation is much too Orwellian for my liking. It’s disturbing how it converges once you begin to think it’s OK for us to do it because we’re the “good guys”.

Magazine Preview – Building a Better Teacher – NYTimes.com.

A long but worthwhile piece on improving education by improving teachers, rather than worrying about standardized test scores or charter schools or class size:

When researchers ran the numbers in dozens of different studies, every factor under a school’s control produced just a tiny impact, except for one: which teacher the student had been assigned to. Some teachers could regularly lift their students’ test scores above the average for children of the same race, class and ability level. Others’ students left with below-average results year after year. William Sanders, a statistician studying Tennessee teachers with a colleague, found that a student with a weak teacher for three straight years would score, on average, 50 percentile points behind a similar student with a strong teacher for those years. Teachers working in the same building, teaching the same grade, produced very different outcomes. And the gaps were huge. Eric Hanushek, a Stanford economist, found that while the top 5 percent of teachers were able to impart a year and a half’s worth of learning to students in one school year, as judged by standardized tests, the weakest 5 percent advanced their students only half a year of material each year.

Seems obvious from my perspective as a bit of through put in the educational system. The difficulty seems that it’s hard to nail down exactly what separates the good from the bad. How would a well intentioned administrator implement a program to improve teachers? We don’t seem to know what to measure.

But what makes a good teacher? There have been many quests for the one essential trait, and they have all come up empty-handed. Among the factors that do not predict whether a teacher will succeed: a graduate-school degree, a high score on the SAT, an extroverted personality, politeness, confidence, warmth, enthusiasm and having passed the teacher-certification exam on the first try. When Bill Gates announced recently that his foundation was investing millions in a project to improve teaching quality in the United States, he added a rueful caveat. “Unfortunately, it seems the field doesn’t have a clear view of what characterizes good teaching,” Gates said. “I’m personally very curious.”

I share his curiosity about the subject. Our little one will be 3 this summer. Soon enough she’ll be headed off to a local pre-k program and become grist for mill of public education. Should concerned parents try private or charter education? The local elementary school is well rated, but is that enough?

2010 Walk Now for Autism Speaks: Tampa Bay – General Donation.

I have a very personal connection to this effort. It’s is for my granddaughter Elisabeth and other families living with autism. She’s  and is a very sweet 5 year old little girl who’s still struggling to learn to speak. Please follow the link above and help if you can.

Elisabeth

I hope sometime soon laws are passed that prevent insurance companies from refusing to cover her and from carving out exceptions that offer reduced benefits to children like her. In many cases autism treated as a mental illness and covered with a greatly reduced set of benefits that prevents them from getting useful therapy that can mean the difference between an independent life or permanent dependence on public assistance. It’s just wrong, it’s not like kids with autism are looking for Prozac to “help” them through a bad break-up. Their victims of  a poorly understood condition that’s no fault of their own.

At the same time states and county school districts are cutting or considering cutting programs to help children with developmental difficulties, like Elisabeth. This will rob any chance of a future from autistic children who come from families that aren’t wealthy enough to pay for private schools and therapy on their own.

I have seen the future and it’s SSD.

The more I see an hear about SSD devices, the more I like it. I know I’m going to upgrade to SSD for the OS and swap file partitions, perhaps with a few programs that would benefit from the extra speed. That would require a another drive for access to larger files, primarily audio and video content, most likely in the form of a pair of 500GB drive (in a RAID1 mirror array)  the old home server.  SATA disk drives are really cheap these days. I can remember buying a 20MB (yes that’s megabyte not gigabyte) drive as an upgrade for and IBM XT PC for $300 many years ago. Beat the crap out of running off dual 5.25″ floppy drives. These days with that much coin you could sport a 500GB RAID-5 3 drive array.

I run a Redhat derivative called SME Linux to act as web, file and e-mail server, as well as a firewall at home. It’s got a simplified web admin interface for basic tasks and no Gnome, KDE or other desktop software, but you can always open a terminal and get at the guts of it. It’s purpose in life is to be a LAMP server and it does fine in the role. The old SME box needs some new hardware at some point, particularly memory, as various web crawlers and spiders that index my blog can bring it too its knees. Memory usage seems to be the culprit, along with the bazillion MySQL queries that search engine indexing causes. Bumping up the available RAM and using SSD selectively sounds like a good way of bumping up performance without spending too much. The only reason I care is it causes Wordpress to throw database errors, making the blog unavailable (probably no major loss there) and makes my e-mail bog down to a standstill as well.

Meanwhile, my netbook might just get a 64GB SSD upgrade, to check out how well this may or may not help performance prior to spending the coin on a larger model. I saw some at my favorite retailer newegg.com that sport a lifetime warranty. You gotta like that.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: US Manufacturing Is Not Dead.

Bondad at 538 takes on the notion that US manufacturing job are gone (and aren’t’ coming back) because free trade agreements like NAFTA allowed US markets to be flooded with cheap foreign goods. He literally graphs the issues to death.

The main point appears to be that that productivity increases and not a dearth of US manufacturing activity, foreign imports or outsourcing  has been the driver of job loss in manufacturing.  We need fewer workers per volume of goods. He closes with some points about a lack of a US export strategy similar to what’s practiced growing Asian economies, Chinese currency manipulation, and how productivity changes have primarily impacted those lacking a college education.

Update:

You could take the headline one of two ways, either it’s moribund and not coming back: Monty Python: Bring Out Your Dead

or

You could say it’s not dead it’s just resting: Monty Python: Parrot Sketch

Or maybe I just want excuses for posting Monty Python stuff.

The New Yorker points out that despite bitching and moaning to the contrary the Senate Health Care bill is bipartisan:

…the Democrats’ bill more closely resembles Richard Nixon’s health-care proposal—the one that Ted Kennedy went to his grave regretting he hadn’t embraced—than it does Bill Clinton’s, to say nothing of Harry Truman’s. Nor are all its Republican features archeological. “Our bill contains over a hundred and forty-seven distinct Republican amendments,” Senator Tom Harkin, of Iowa, reminded his summit colleagues. The health-care reform bill—which, despite everything, is still alive—is an ambitious piece of legislation, however modest it may be by the measure of the rest of the developed world. Ideologically and substantively, it is centrist. It has Republicans, and Republicanism, in its family tree.

via Bipartisanship and your health : The New Yorker.

The GOP caucus simply wants to block reform by any means necessary. It’s not about the relative merits of reform proposals or who came up with them. It’s not about tens of thousands who die annually because they delay care for a lack of coverage. It’s not even about wild shrill, misused accusations of socialism or fascism. It’s about electoral politics, pure and simple. If they can deny Obama a victory, they feel like they’ll do better in the mid-terms. If thousands more die, well they probably didn’t have the money to contribute to their campaigns anyway.

This was a gem from Krugman, I don’t usually copy an entire post, but this was worth it:

Jonathan Chait and Robert Waldmann, in slightly different ways, highlight a crucial dynamic in American political debate: the extent to which public figures are punished for actually knowing what they’re talking about.

It goes like this: Person A says “Black is white” — perhaps out of ignorance, although more often out of a deliberate effort to obfuscate. Person B says, “No, black isn’t white — here are the facts.”

And Person B is considered to have lost the exchange — you see, he came across as arrogant and condescending.

I had, I have to admit, hoped that the nation’s experience with George W. Bush — who got within hanging-chad distance of the White House precisely because Al Gore was punished for actually knowing stuff — would have cured our discourse of this malady. But no. Why not?

Chait professes himself puzzled by the right’s intellectual insecurity. Me, not so much. Here’s how I see it: in our current political culture, the background noise is overwhelmingly one of conservative platitudes. People who have strong feelings about politics but are intellectually incurious tend to pick up those platitudes, and repeat them in the belief that this makes them sound smart. (Ezra Klein once described Dick Armey thus: “He’s like a stupid person’s idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.”)

Inevitably, then, such people react with rage when they’re shown up on their facts or basic logic — it’s an attack on their sense of self-worth.

The truly sad thing, though, is the way much news reporting goes along with the condescension meme. That’s Waldmann’s point. You really, really might have expected that the Bush experience would give reporters pause — that they might at least ask themselves, “Isn’t it my job to ask whether a politician is right, as opposed to how he comes across?”

via Economics and Politics – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com.

It’s worth just for the line about Dick Armey, but on a more serious note it does say a lot about our political system. It has to all come back to the educational system. It’s harder to get away with obfuscation when dealing with people capable of critical thinking. Maybe people of good conscience will come to different conclusions as to the best course, but hopefully they have the internal resources to sort out obvious (if pleasant sounding) bullshit. It does seem the American people are addicted to truthiness

Are there no limits of civilized behavior that’s not subject to be waived away by legal sophistry?

At the core of the legal arguments were the views of Yoo, strongly backed by David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s legal counsel, that the president’s wartime powers were essentially unlimited and included the authority to override laws passed by Congress, such as a statute banning the use of torture. Pressed on his views in an interview with OPR investigators, Yoo was asked:

“What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? … Is that a power that the president could legally—”

“Yeah,” Yoo replied, according to a partial transcript included in the report. “Although, let me say this: So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief’s power over tactical decisions.”

“To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?” the OPR investigator asked again.

“Sure,” said Yoo.

via Report: Bush Lawyer Said President Could Order Civilians to Be ‘Massacred’ – Declassified Blog – Newsweek.com.

Apparently not. No limits on barbarity and no moral bright lines these people would not cross.

Krugman, on the shear incoherence and cowardice of the GOP’s so-called  small government activists:

…ever since Reagan, the G.O.P. has been run by people who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives want to get the government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

…But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — are very popular. So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?

At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power.

But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: in effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn’t enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first.

via Op-Ed Columnist – The Bankruptcy Boys – NYTimes.com.

Anyone with an interest in what’s wrong with the Senate should read the whole thing. Here’s what’s wrong in one paragraph.

most strident partisans must learn to occasionally sacrifice short-term tactical political advantage for the sake of the nation. Otherwise, Congress will remain stuck in an endless cycle of recrimination and revenge. The minority seeks to frustrate the majority, and when the majority is displaced it returns the favor. Power is constantly sought through the use of means which render its effective use, once acquired, impossible.

via Op-Ed Contributor – Why I’m Leaving the Senate – NYTimes.com.

The GOP preaches small government when out of power, while massively expanding it when actually in power. Their policy of don’t tax and spend is directly related to the looming fiscal crisis that threatens to push the federal government down the same road as California and Greece. What they actually do while in power is diametrically opposed to the goals of actual libertarians that make up Ron Paul supporters and many Tea Partiers, except when they need libertarians to win an election.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon, nail is it:

This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm. Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket. The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State. Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their “small government principles.” The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton’s Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers. The last eight years of Republican rule was characterized by nothing other than endlessly expanded government power, even as they insisted — both before they were empowered and again now — that they are the standard-bearers of government restraint.

What makes this deceit particularly urgent for them now is that their only hope for re-branding and re-empowerment lies in a movement — the tea partiers — that has been (largely though not exclusively) dominated by libertarians, Paul followers, and other assorted idiosyncratic factions who are hostile to the GOP’s actual approach to governing.  This is a huge wedge waiting to be exposed — to explode — as the modern GOP establishment and the actual ”small-government” libertarians that fuel the tea party are fundamentally incompatible.  Right-wing mavens like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and National Review are suddenly feigning great respect for Ron Paul and like-minded activists because they’re eager that the sham will be maintained:  the blatant sham that the modern GOP and its movement conservatives are a coherent vehicle for those who believe in small government principles.  The only evidence of a passionate movement urging GOP resurgence is from people whose views are antithetical to that Party.

via Glenn Greenwald – Salon.com.

John Birch Society at CPAC | Talking Points Memo.

CPAC welcomes everyone’s favorite old time racists. They’re faithful followers of Brother John Birch…

(Apologies to Charlie Daniels for paraphrasing “Uneasy Rider“)

Seth MacFarlane, on last nights Real Time with Bill Maher, says: “If Ronald Regan was President, he’d try Dick Cheney for war crimes.” This was in response to Bill asking if anyone has seen Dick Cheney brag about personally ordering water boarding on the Sunday talk shows. The assertion is, I assume, based on Reagan signing the UN Treaty Against Torture.

So how might so-called conservatives who defend torture by our government respond to that kind of cognitive dissonance? Reagan worship on one hand, and mindless support of barbarism on the other. Oh how can they possibly choose?

As a long time supporter of systemic health reform I find this heartening:

Democrats will finish their health reform efforts within the next two months by using a majority-vote maneuver in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.

Reid said that congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster.

via Reid: Dems will use 50-vote tactic to finish healthcare in 60 days – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room.

I just hope it’s not yet another Charlie Brown getting the football yanked away type moment. The would benefit electorally from actually getting something substantive done.

There’s been a profound sense of disappointment in the Obama Administration’s inability to do what they promised. The effort has lacked leadership from the White House. This needs to change. He needs to get in there and twist arms and apply leverage to his own caucus to get them lined up behind the legislative agenda.

The New Poor – Despite Signs of Recovery, Long-Term Unemployment Rises – Series – NYTimes.com.

Brother can you spare a dime? – Tom Waits version. No one can give voice to the pain of a working man without a job like Tom.

I guess the song is making a come back…

That’s quite a defense, but it’s hard to disagree with that headline. If you haven’t been following this, it’s regarding the investigation of DOJ lawyers who provided the White House and DOD legal cover to torture detainees as long as it didn’t result in death or permanent injury:

Justice Department Will Not Punish Yoo and Bybee Because Most Lawyers Are Scum Anyway – Balkinization.

But Margolis argues that the Office of Professional Responsibility chose too high a standard to judge the professional responsibility of Yoo and Bybee. The OPR argued that Yoo and Bybee had “a duty to exercise independent legal judgment and to render thorough, objective, and candid legal advice.” This standard, Margolis explained, is much too high a requirement and not one that Yoo and Bybee were previously warned was the standard to which they would be held.

I know what you are probably saying: shouldn’t every government lawyer have to live up to this standard? Of course, they should, but the point is that this is a disciplinary proceeding. It’s not about what people should do, but about how badly they have to screw things up before they are subject to professional sanctions.

Instead, Margolis argues that, judging by (among other things) a review of D.C. bar rules, the standard for attorney misconduct is set pretty damn low, and is only violated by lawyers who (here I put it colloquially) are the scum of the earth. Lawyers barely above the scum of the earth are therefore excused.

Margolis concludes that Yoo and Bybee exercised poor judgment and made bad legal arguments. But lawyers often make arguments that are bad or even laughably bad, and this by itself does not violate the very low standard set by rules of professional responsibility. These rules are set up by jurisdictions to weed out the worst offenders, leaving the rest of the legal profession to make entirely stupid, disingenuous and asinine arguments that normal people with functioning moral consciences would not make. That is to say, rules of professional misconduct are aimed at weeding out sociopaths and people driven to theft and egregious incompetence by serious drug and alcohol abuse problems; they do not guarantee that lawyers will do right by their clients, or, in this case, by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

It’s hard to say how much our national interests were damaged by abandonment of various international treaties (like the Geneva Conventions or the United Nations Convention Against Torture) and American laws. Under the cover provided by Yoo and Bybee or government adopted the interrogation techniques and rhetoric of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Khmer Rouge and the Soviet Union.

Our institutions and leaders have decided that this is just fine, we can do exactly what we hanged Japanese Officers for after World War II. The argument is that it protected us and is therefore OK. This is the ultimate “the ends justifies the means” argument and is completely divorced from moral grounding.

Many have pointed out that there isn’t one terrorist plot foiled by this barbaric behavior. The Los Angeles Library Tower plot is trotted out as proof despite it being provably false. Dick Cheney loves to mention that, you can’t let the truth get in the way of a good story, especially if it’s part of an effort to cover you own ass.

For me it all comes down to this: either we are better than the terrorists that would destroy us or were not. Democracies don’t use the kind of techniques the former VP champions, we necessarily take certain behaviors off the table. This is as it should be, we keep the moral high ground. Fans of torture have no problem dragging us down to lowest levels of human conduct.

I say we can take these assholes without destroying the rule of law or lowering ourselves to their level. These religious fanatics are not now, nor have they ever been, an existential threat to our country.  They should be treated as the thugs and criminals they are.

Getting the Facts Straight — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

I find it extremely unlikely that the Democrats in Congress would rediscover the contents of their metaphorical nutsacks and actually do something.

Sen. Michael Bennet’s effort to revive the public option in the reconciliation process is gaining steam, with almost 20 senators signing on to the idea. Among them are Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who are not, shall we say, possessed of a whimsical or quixotic temperament.

Of course, you don’t need almost 20 senators. You need 51, or more. And complicating that project is that the question here is not simply “public option: yes or no?” It’s whether you want to jam a public option into a bill that Senate Democrats already passed without a public option. Not only are you throwing out any hope of appearing even slightly bipartisan, but you’re also increasing internal dissension and adding unpredictability into a process that’s collapsed into chaos already.

via Ezra Klein – Is the public option making a comeback?.

Nerd Merit Badges – Welcome.

I can honestly say I’ve earned many of these…