Political Randomness

[The Meal]

I wasn't talking about climate when I was posting about Natural Environment. We have a wealth of untouched forests, lakes, rivers and beautiful beaches that blow anything in New York away. It's not even close.

I, too, was initially "up in arms" for my state's ranking on the Natural Environment metric, until I dug in and saw how things were actually ranked. We, too, have a wealth of untouched forests, lakes, rivers, and I'll throw in mountains instead of beaches. Guess what? That's not how they measured "Natural Environment."

Survey/Studies (the two can be synonyms) are fairly subjective, as you point out. This isn't a CIA Factbook entry for our states. The authors of the system decided how to assign points for each category. Fortunately (especially in today's world) they also documented with a fair amount of transparency how they went about making their assessments. You, me, and other rationally minded people are welcome to disagree with their system. But while there is a fair amount of subjectivity in the process as a whole, there's a lot of objective measures performed in that process as well.

[Alefroth]

(though if we had the same amount of industry as NY, we would certainly be producing more pollutants, thanks again to our F'ed up State and local governments).

You already have way more industrial toxins than New York. You aren't really looking at the data, are you?

I wasn't talking about climate when I was posting about Natural Environment. We have a wealth of untouched forests, lakes, rivers and beautiful beaches that blow anything in New York away. It's not even close.

That's very subjective isn't it, which is probably why it wasn't included in the study.

And objectively, it is kind of close-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_co ... ted_States

[Apollo]

I wasn't talking about climate when I was posting about Natural Environment. We have a wealth of untouched forests, lakes, rivers and beautiful beaches that blow anything in New York away. It's not even close.

I, too, was initially "up in arms" for my state's ranking on the Natural Environment metric, until I dug in and saw how things were actually ranked. We, too, have a wealth of untouched forests, lakes, rivers, and I'll throw in mountains instead of beaches. Guess what? That's not how they measured "Natural Environment."...

While I don't disagree with anything you have posted, this statement does figure into my root argument, which is that studies like this seem to downplay all of the advantages of living in many Southern states, while exacerbating the negatives. I think most people who are familiar with both states would agree with me that Alabama has more untouched, natural beauty in it's many rivers, forests and beaches than NY, and yet they have found a way to score the category that actually rates states like New York higher than Alabama. It makes the South seem far worse in some areas than it actually is.

To give one small example, Alabama dropped in "Infrastructure" from 32nd to 38th in one year, despite the fact that the State government actually passed an increase to the gas tax to help repair roads and bridges. (Yeah, even we Alabamians couldn't believe it! ).

Finally, for me the results speak for themselves. I'm indifferent to living in Washington or North Carolina, and I would gladly move to Colorado, Florida or California, but every other State that finished in the top 20 is a State I wouldn't move to with a gun to my head. Of course, reasonable minds may differ and all that...

[GreenGoo]

Fair enough. It said survey in the article and that's as far as I was interested in going. My assumption was based on that plus Apollo suggesting it was opinion based.

Yeah, I mistakenly posted "survey" when I should have posted "study". Sorry about that, but I stand by the rest of what I posted.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I was just reading things into it that weren't there.

[coopasonic]

I think most people who are familiar with both states would agree with me that Alabama has more untouched, natural beauty in it's many rivers, forests and beaches than NY, and yet they have found a way to score the category that actually rates states like New York higher than Alabama. It makes the South seem far worse in some areas than it actually is.

As a native of rural NY I am not sure I am on board there. NY is slightly bigger than Alabama in terms of square mileage.

https://www2.census.gov/library/publica ... 1s1253.pdf

NY has 73k acres of national parks and AL has 23k. NY has mountains, forests and rivers aplenty, some of the best wine country in the country, four actual seasons. NY also has more shoreline than AL (Hi Long Island), much more if you consider the Great Lakes.

NYC is NOT all that NY has to offer.

[Skinypupy]

Christ, what an asshole.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) objected to a $19.1 billion disaster aid package on Tuesday, derailing House leaders’ bid to send federal support to victims of natural disasters.

Massie joins Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), who was the lone representative to object Friday when House leaders made their first attempt at passing the measure. Massie and Roy both said they objected because of the impact of the aid in increasing the national debt, and because lawmakers left out the funding President Trump had requested for operations along the U.S.-Mexico border.

This bit is particularly odious

House lawmakers left Washington last week, but leaders tried to pass the bill by “unanimous consent,” a maneuver that allows for quick passage of legislation with only a few members present. A single objection is enough to block a bill from passing by unanimous consent.

Massie called it “legislative malpractice” to pass the legislation without a full vote of the House, and he faulted Democrats for having sent members home for the Memorial Day break.

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “considered this must-pass legislation, why did she send everyone on recess?” Massie said Tuesday.

Maybe - just maybe - she didn't figure that anyone could possibly be a big enough asshole to hold up disaster funding because STIGGINIT.

Yet again, we underestimate the deplorables.

[GreenGoo]

Aside from the details involved, it takes a special kind of asshole to obstruct and then blame the other side for not anticipating his obstruction.

[malchior]

It is also bullshit for procedural reasons. This douche canoe knows it is much quicker to pass a bill by unanimous consent. She could have kept them all in town and it still wouldn't have been done.

[malchior]

Openly hypocritical and loving it.

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1 ... 9972896768

[Skinypupy]

I especially love one commenter’s description of Merrick Garland as a “radical leftist”.

[Smoove_B]

And it's good to see his wife is cut from the same cloth. Consequences? Who cares.

[Holman]

When McConnell dies of moral organ failure on the senate floor, the first mediapro to say "statesman" gets a sledgehammer to the nuts.

[Skinypupy]

The US Department of Energy is now referring to fossil fuels as "molecules of US Freedom" and "freedom gas"...in official press releases.

https://twitter.com/ellengilmer/status/ ... 1468196864

Idiocracy is becoming more prophetic by the hour.

[hitbyambulance]

we really do deserve this administration, don't we.

[LawBeefaroni]

We used to at least say we wanted to spread actual freedom.

[hepcat]

And mom's apple pie is now Freedom Flavor Crystals.

[$iljanus]

Better than that Socialist Sun energy and Comrade Wind.

[Freyland]

And Communist water power.

That's the real reason for the term "community swimming pools", amiright?

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

The Fresno Grizzlies, the Nationals’ Class AAA affiliate, need to find and fire the employees who failed to monitor and prevent a video shown at their stadium on Memorial Day that placed an image of a duly elected member of Congress alongside photos of dictators — all of them characterized as “enemies of freedom.”

If the Grizzlies don’t do it, then the Nats, who had nothing to do with the hate-fomenting message — directed at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — must intervene with their minor league team. The big club must big foot: Investigate and pink-slip those who were responsible, whether by negligence or malice.

If you’re the one who hasn’t heard, the Grizzlies ran a tribute video honoring military veterans as patriotic words by former president Ronald Reagan were played. As he denounced “the enemies of freedom,” pictures flashed of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and former Cuban president Fidel Castro . And Ocasio-Cortez.
...
The Grizzlies’ current position — that they have found a “remorseful” but unidentified employee and are studying the matter — can be only a beginning. Even though the video was pulled from YouTube, the Grizzlies showed it to a crowd on a military holiday — and identified a congresswoman as an enemy of freedom. Someone is responsible. And someone’s got to go. If it’s the top executive of the Grizzlies who must say “the buck stops here,” then fine — so long.

In a Tuesday tweet, Ocasio-Cortez correctly identified the central and extremely important issue. “What people don’t (maybe do) realize is when orgs air these hateful messages, my life changes bc of the flood of death threats they inspire,” she wrote. “I’ve had mornings where I wake up & the 1st thing I do w/ my coffee is review photos of the men (it’s always men) who want to kill me.”

[Isgrimnur]

Fresno Bee

Sun-Maid, the popular raisin company with deep roots in the central San Joaquin Valley, has terminated its partnership with the Fresno Grizzlies.

Sun-Maid announced its termination Wednesday evening, citing the Grizzlies’ Memorial Day debacle when the minor league baseball club aired a video tribute that equated Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the likes of North Korea dictator Kim Jong Un and former Cuban president Fidel Castro.

“We are deeply disappointed by the Memorial Day tribute video the Fresno Grizzlies aired on Monday,” Sun-Maid said in an email sent to The Bee via public relations agency Havas Formula. “Sun-Maid does not support the views or sentiments expressed in the video, nor does it condone the airing of it.

“While the Grizzlies have apologized for this mistake, we are standing on the side of what we believe is right and terminating our sponsorship of the team.”

[Skinypupy]

And for today's "No Shit, Sherlock" news, we have this: Files on deceased GOP strategist's drive confirm that adding a Census citizenship question was intended purely to give Republicans a political advantage. (Originally reported by the NY Times, but since that's paywalled, we'll go with this one instead.)

Thomas Hofeller, who died last August, concluded in a 2015 report that adding the question would produce the data needed to redraw political maps that would be "advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites," according to a court filing released Thursday.

Plaintiffs in one of the New York-based lawsuits over the question say that Hofeller later ghostwrote an early draft of the administration's request for the question and helped form a reason for adding the question to forms for the national head count.

The Trump administration has maintained it wants census responses to the question — "Is this person a citizen of the United States? — to better enforce Voting Rights Act protections for racial and language minorities.

But Hofeller's documents uncovered through a separate lawsuit suggest that administration officials were aware that including the question "would not benefit Latino voters, but rather would facilitate significantly reducing their political power," argue attorneys with the law firm Arnold & Porter, the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union in a letter to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas

In the final days of the legislative session, with a Senate confirmation looking increasingly unlikely for embattled Secretary of State David Whitley, Gov. Greg Abbott ramped up efforts to confirm his longtime aide, calling several Senate Democrats individually to his office to try to change their votes.

Democrats stayed united with a bloc large enough to prevent Whitley from keeping his job — but they feared that there might be retribution.

And then on Monday, minutes before the Senate gaveled out — and minutes after news broke that Whitley had resigned from the post — the Republican governor publicly doled out what some Senate Democrats see as punishment for holding firm. A Senate clerk read out the news: Abbott had vetoed four seemingly uncontroversial bills authored by several of the Democrats whose opposition had doomed his nominee.
...
Among the vetoed legislation was Rodriguez’s Senate Bill 511, which sought to address the high incidence of car accidents due to “unsafe tires” by creating a civil penalty for the installation of such tires. Abbott had vetoed a similar bill two years ago, but Rodriguez said his office had worked with the governor’s team to address his issues with the legislation.
...
Whitley, who has worked for Abbott since the mid-2000s, is said to be a part of the “Abbott family” — so close to the governor that before Whitley got married, Abbott counseled the couple on how to maintain a strong relationship during Whitley’s law school years, according to The Dallas Morning News. Whitley started as an “advance man” for then-Attorney General Abbott, helping coordinate his travel plans, and ultimately rose through the ranks to become the governor’s deputy chief of staff.

The pressure on the Democrats intensified as the legislative session pressed on. Some senators had received calls from business associates, clients and donors, who had apparently been nudged by the governor’s office to encourage them to back Whitley, and they were facing veto threats, said Sen. Borris Miles, a Houston Democrat who did not receive such overtures but said he heard from his colleagues about them.

[LordMortis]

Woah.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... ng-1348434

Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez set aside their Twitter bickering Thursday to strike an unusual bargain: an agreement to work together on a bill to ban former members of Congress from lobbying for life.

The Texas Republican and the New York Democrat made the pact on Twitter after Ocasio-Cortez tweeted a report by the watchdog group Public Citizen on the number of former lawmakers who’ve headed to K Street this year.

[El Guapo]

Woah.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... ng-1348434

Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez set aside their Twitter bickering Thursday to strike an unusual bargain: an agreement to work together on a bill to ban former members of Congress from lobbying for life.

The Texas Republican and the New York Democrat made the pact on Twitter after Ocasio-Cortez tweeted a report by the watchdog group Public Citizen on the number of former lawmakers who’ve headed to K Street this year.

I do wonder whether lobbying bans would raise constitutional issues. Don't former Congresspeople have a first amendment right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"? Generally the grievances of oil companies and the like, but still. Seems like less of a leap than Citizens United.

[LordMortis]

I'm mostly impressed that these two poster children of partisanism found common cause on something short of war or economic collapse.

[ImLawBoy]

Woah.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... ng-1348434

Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez set aside their Twitter bickering Thursday to strike an unusual bargain: an agreement to work together on a bill to ban former members of Congress from lobbying for life.

The Texas Republican and the New York Democrat made the pact on Twitter after Ocasio-Cortez tweeted a report by the watchdog group Public Citizen on the number of former lawmakers who’ve headed to K Street this year.

I do wonder whether lobbying bans would raise constitutional issues. Don't former Congresspeople have a first amendment right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"? Generally the grievances of oil companies and the like, but still. Seems like less of a leap than Citizens United.

The First Amendment does seem like the biggest obstacle for something like this. I imagine the bill would be drafted to say that they could still lobby, but they can't actually be paid for it. That would preserve their 1A right while removing the financial incentive.

[El Guapo]

I'm mostly impressed that these two poster children of partisanism found common cause on something short of war or economic collapse.

Well, if you're concerned about losing your cynicism you can say that this is an easy way to score political points on a popular issue (lobbying is bad!) with a proposal that's super unlikely to become law over the next couple years at least.

[El Guapo]

Woah.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... ng-1348434

Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez set aside their Twitter bickering Thursday to strike an unusual bargain: an agreement to work together on a bill to ban former members of Congress from lobbying for life.

The Texas Republican and the New York Democrat made the pact on Twitter after Ocasio-Cortez tweeted a report by the watchdog group Public Citizen on the number of former lawmakers who’ve headed to K Street this year.

I do wonder whether lobbying bans would raise constitutional issues. Don't former Congresspeople have a first amendment right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"? Generally the grievances of oil companies and the like, but still. Seems like less of a leap than Citizens United.

The First Amendment does seem like the biggest obstacle for something like this. I imagine the bill would be drafted to say that they could still lobby, but they can't actually be paid for it. That would preserve their 1A right while removing the financial incentive.

I don't know, that sure seems like imposing a financial penalty (no salary) on someone for exercising first amendment rights. I would think the argument would be something like this is a restriction narrowly tailored to their decision to accept a position in Congress. Presumably the ban wouldn't (I would think) restrict them from, say, lobbying at state houses, or for speaking in public, at rallies, etc.

[Pyperkub]

I'm mostly impressed that these two poster children of partisanism found common cause on something short of war or economic collapse.

Please list your criteria for defining AOC as a poster child for partisanism.

I think you'll find that they are all conservative opinions with little basis in reality.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I'm mostly impressed that these two poster children of partisanism found common cause on something short of war or economic collapse.

Please list your criteria for defining AOC as a poster child for partisanism.

I think you'll find that they are all conservative opinions with little basis in reality.

I was going to post something similar. Yes, she has been outspoken about the policies she wants to enact, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that she's been openly partisan.

[Dramatist]

Yeah. One of the refreshing things about AOC is her ideas are her own and not partisan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Guapo]

To be fair partisanship is mostly in the eye of the beholder. I think we're inclined to see AOC as a principled believer because we're sympathetic to her beliefs, whereas we are inclined to see the Paul Ryans of the world as partisans.

[Remus West]

To be fair partisanship is mostly in the eye of the beholder. I think we're inclined to see AOC as a principled believer because we're sympathetic to her beliefs, whereas we are inclined to see the Paul Ryans of the world as partisans.

Couldn't disagree more. Partisanship has zero to do with ideas and everything to do with willingness to work across the aisle. The vast majority of the Republicans in office have shown themselves to be fully partisan because they proudly place party before country. Holding ideals that do not match the other side doesn't make a person partisan. Unwillingness to compromise with the other party does.

Newt Gingrich does not get enough blame for the fucking mess our country is in right now. Without his bullshit we probably do not end up with Mc's super bullshit.

[LordMortis]

I'm mostly impressed that these two poster children of partisanism found common cause on something short of war or economic collapse.

Please list your criteria for defining AOC as a poster child for partisanism.

I think you'll find that they are all conservative opinions with little basis in reality.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/politics ... index.html

[Alefroth]

I'm mostly impressed that these two poster children of partisanism found common cause on something short of war or economic collapse.

Please list your criteria for defining AOC as a poster child for partisanism.

I think you'll find that they are all conservative opinions with little basis in reality.

Ditto.

[El Guapo]

To be fair partisanship is mostly in the eye of the beholder. I think we're inclined to see AOC as a principled believer because we're sympathetic to her beliefs, whereas we are inclined to see the Paul Ryans of the world as partisans.

Couldn't disagree more. Partisanship has zero to do with ideas and everything to do with willingness to work across the aisle. The vast majority of the Republicans in office have shown themselves to be fully partisan because they proudly place party before country. Holding ideals that do not match the other side doesn't make a person partisan. Unwillingness to compromise with the other party does.

Newt Gingrich does not get enough blame for the fucking mess our country is in right now. Without his bullshit we probably do not end up with Mc's super bullshit.

Is AOC more or less willing to work with the other party than most other Congresspeople? I honestly don't know. It seems like a lot of the stuff that she gets credit for is (deservedly) sticking it to Republicans.

Anyway, this isn't a moral equivalence thing so much as it is just noting that "partisan" is a pretty subjective term, and I think how one applies it is inevitably going to depend significantly on one's politics. Like, you say it depends upon putting "party before country", but I think the general belief for a lot of Republicans is that the GOP is better for the country, therefore helping the party helps the country (by saving it from those socialist mobs).

For example, do you think of Ted Cruz as less of a partisan because he is co-sponsoring this legislation with AOC?

[Remus West]

For example, do you think of Ted Cruz as less of a partisan because he is co-sponsoring this legislation with AOC?

Yes. That said, this moves the needle a little bit but it still points so hard to "partisan" that it is pretty insignificant.

For anyone to really move the needle would take them openly looking at the other side's position and finding a compromise with their own. Give a little to get a little.

[El Guapo]

For example, do you think of Ted Cruz as less of a partisan because he is co-sponsoring this legislation with AOC?

Yes. That said, this moves the needle a little bit but it still points so hard to "partisan" that it is pretty insignificant.

For anyone to really move the needle would take them openly looking at the other side's position and finding a compromise with their own. Give a little to get a little.

Has AOC done this?

But this also gets at the quicksand of the 'partisan' label. Because it would be unreasonable to expect someone to look at the other side's position and find a compromise in the middle if the other side is insane / cruel / etc. Like, "let's only lock up half of migrant children in cages" or the like. So if one side is pretty objectively crazy (and I would say that the GOP is these days) is refusing to compromise with them principles or partisanship? Is there ultimately a material difference in outcome?

[Remus West]

For example, do you think of Ted Cruz as less of a partisan because he is co-sponsoring this legislation with AOC?

Yes. That said, this moves the needle a little bit but it still points so hard to "partisan" that it is pretty insignificant.

For anyone to really move the needle would take them openly looking at the other side's position and finding a compromise with their own. Give a little to get a little.

Has AOC done this?

But this also gets at the quicksand of the 'partisan' label. Because it would be unreasonable to expect someone to look at the other side's position and find a compromise in the middle if the other side is insane / cruel / etc. Like, "let's only lock up half of migrant children in cages" or the like. So if one side is pretty objectively crazy (and I would say that the GOP is these days) is refusing to compromise with them principles or partisanship? Is there ultimately a material difference in outcome?

You do not need to compromise on all things to be non-partisan. AOC, for me, does not have enough of a record to go either way yet. As you note, there are certain things where compromise should not be acceptable (I expect the right considers abortion one of these things in the opposite direction that I also consider it one). Yet there should be some ability to work between both extremes. Currently, in large part due to Newt's "There will be no compromise", the majority of the GOP refuses to even consider this and holds those who compromise the least as their ideal.

[Pyperkub]

I'm mostly impressed that these two poster children of partisanism found common cause on something short of war or economic collapse.

Please list your criteria for defining AOC as a poster child for partisanism.

I think you'll find that they are all conservative opinions with little basis in reality.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/politics ... index.html

Seems to prove my point that someone is using a cut out of her for something, and not really anything substantive.