The NYT Doesn't Get Why We're Bicameral

Althouse posted this story: "Frances E. Lee, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, said the problem was as real as the solution elusive, adding that she and other scholars have tried without success to find a contemporary reason to exempt the Senate from the usual rules of granting citizens an equal voice in their government."

You can tell this is top shelf journalism because some are saying things, while others are saying other things. As for being the least democratic legislature, it's almost like no one remembers the House of Lords still exists. I also note that all the methods suggested to balance the power, particularly the suggested fix for the Electoral College, essentially would completely neuter small states. This whine is a political power play unfounded in the recognition that we're not a pure democracy, and frankly, pure democracies are scary things.

Then again, I'm not a political scientist. Alas, if only there were some papers somewhere, that some people might have written -- perhaps contemporaneously -- that explained all of this. But, I suppose that the reasoning behind the establishment of the Senate is a mystery shrouded in myths forever and ever, amen.

---

PS: This is known as "working as intended;" this is a "feature not a bug;" it is "baked into the cake."

The Public Says It Wants Compromise

Namely, they want it on the fiscal cliff. Yet, every action the public has taken gets in the way of compromise (electing a divided government, remaining blissfully ignorant about Simpson-Bowles, kicking the can down the road for decades to reach the fiscal cliff, not punishing politicians who won't even pass a budget, etc.)

Compromise requires both sides to give something up that they want, and it often requires what is given up to be a little painful for both sides. It requires parties to negotiate in good faith, and it requires stakeholders in the negotiations (that is, average Americans) to pay enough attention and hold people accountable.

If you want compromise, then vote for people who are likely to reach compromises as opposed to political ideologues, whether they be Tea Party extremists or Pelosi-wing Democrats. America will not get compromise if we keep rewarding behavior that has never, in the past, brought about compromise. Now, doing something is not always better than doing nothing, and if the something being offered by both sides is unacceptable, then the only something that will happen is sequestration.

Now, here's the interesting thing about sequestration: Like any bargaining position, you should not agree to it or make a threat unless you are willing to pull the trigger on it. You don't kick in the door to your bank and yell at them about bad service unless you are willing to cut a check to yourself for your entire account and walk to the next bank over and open up shop there, for example. So, everyone who agreed to sequestration made a sort of tacit agreement that this was a worst-case acceptable compromise if they couldn't come up with anything better.

So, just remember that if it happens, and act accordingly.

Politicians Are Just People

Politicians are people. As people, they have flaws. Because of that, I've been thinking about our relationship to politicians after watching most of the DNC and all of the RNC. Besides the general "vote the bums out" theory and Eastwood's "let them go" line, the general idea is that we need to try and bring politicians back down to earth.

Get It Fast, But Get It Right

One thing that always bothers me about violence in the news is the rush to provide answers when we don't have them yet. It happens all of the time; the most recent shooting in Colorado is just another example. Any big news story is prone to errors. Sometimes, you just get things wrong.

In today's hyper-fast, super-connected world, you just can't do that any more. The Affordable Care Act ruling, for example, was a huge error in reporting from CNN and Fox. They got it the absolutely backwards. In the Colorado shooting, ABC accused the wrong man of being the shooter. Their reporter on the air even said, basically: "We don't know if this right, but let's throw it out there and see what happens."

The news is, in a way, a race. If you break a story, it can make your career. You can get movies made about you and live on easy street. You can get people to leak information to you and break more stories. It's a great cycle.

But, when you're wrong? In today's day and age... not much really happens. NBC can edit tapes without letting listeners know, and all that happens is a few nameless people get shuffled to a new job. As I was typing this, a perfect example demonstrated itself on Twitter. Here's the tweet. Here's the story. If you read the tweet, what do you think?

Well, that a Romney aide is citing Romney's Anglo-Saxon heritage for something. The story however is clear that it is the exact opposite; that an anonymous source that makes this claim is being rejected by the campaign. It's just sloppy reporting. ABC has good people on its staff; this sort of sloppiness should not be sneaking out. Anonymous, unsourced, comments, rejected by the candidate, somehow are news. Not only that, but the comments are blatantly racial. The journalist who initially printed that should never have went with something so incendiary without having a name willing to be put with the quote, if he even had a quote. But, it is more important to be first rather than right.

Journalists need to be a bit more skeptical. Folks: If it is too good to check, you should probably check it.

Official Supreme Court Predictions

Ok. My official prediction. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court finds in favor of Predator in Alien v Predator. Kennedy writes for the majority, as always, noting that "They've got lasers and space ships. Game, set and match." Concurring, in full, Thomas writes that "We cannot overlook the technological superiority and ranged combat power of the Predator."

Ginsburg dissents, citing Aliens "superior numbers and acid blood."  Scalia concurs in part, but dissents in part, noting that "It would not be a total curb stomp. Some of those ugly mother f****** are going down."

No decision will be reached in Batman v Superman, with it dismissed for lack of standing. Roberts, writing for the court, notes: "This shit'll never happen. Now, Lex Luthor v Joker, that is a ripe issue for the court." Sotomayor, in addition, noted that "If an evil doppelganger Batman or Superman were to challenge his good opposite, we would be able to revisit the case. However, this would not be a precedent setting case, as the evil nature of the alternate universe Batman or Superman would, necessarily, differentiate them from their good counterpart."

Also, on the legal question, "Who you gonna call?", the Court will remand the decision to New York, with Kagan noting while reading the decision that "Cats and dogs living together is a matter for local state regulations." On the second legal issue, in a per curiam decision, the Court finds that the answer is "Yes" to the question: "Are you a god?"

----

P.S.,

Inspired by Tapper's #otherSCOTUSpredictions Twitter hash tag.

Is the Filibuster Unconstitutional?

That is the question the Washington Post asks, and which the subject of their article answers in the affirmative. Now, I have some questions. Asking questions is good. First, let's sit down and read the article. Come back after the jump when you are done.

Election Cycles

This blog is not primarily a political blog, however, some topics, I feel, are political without being politicized, so I feel safe blogging about them. Election cycles is one of them. Like redistricting, there is a partisan aspect to them, but we should be able to see beyond partisanship to find a compromise that serves the need of our nation the best.