Seriously Chris Christie?

Chris Christie is a complicated politician. On the one hand he is a, bullying, anti-union demagogue. His decision to cancel the the ARC tunnel and leave 20 years of transit planning in the waste bin will leave train and road congestion at unconscionable levels. As a transit nerd, I'm particularly pissed about that.

Yet, he has a softer side, at least in comparison to the right-wing ideologs that currently constitute the Republican Party. His defense of his appointment of Sohail Mohammed to the New Jersey Superior Court in the face of grotesque islamophobia was commendable. And he has at least made noises of being gay friendly in a decidedly homophobic party.

But today that softer side died completely in my eyes.

The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.

Beyond the fact that the civil rights movement was fighting and dying to use their right to vote in the first place, this is a completely nonsensical statement. Civil rights cannot and should not be taken away by the ballot box. Period. End of statement. In one felt swoop Christie alienates gays and blacks, two groups that don't really see eye to eye on much. It might look good in a frenzied Republican Primary, but to a general electorate this is an ugly thing to say.

Context? We Don't Need No Stickin' Context

As Teagan Goddard notes, there were high fives at the DNC and Obama HQ today.

My favorite part of the video is that moment right after the money quote when he looks at the camera, pauses, and starts to stutter on his next sentence. It's not a complete "oh shit" moment, but it's damn near close to one.

In full context though, Romney's doesn't sound like a completely heartless bastard. He is saying he likes flexibility as an executive to fire underperforming employees, which is a reasonable position to have. Somehow though, I have the feeling that the only part of that quote we will be seeing in 30 second spots will be when he says "I like being able to fire people."

Of course, Romney will protest loudly that the ads take him completely out of context, and the President is really a radical anti-capitalist who wants everybody to have a job regardless of their ability to do said job.

Unfortunately for Mittens, context has never been all that important to him in the past. In his first ad of the 2012 campaign, Romney took a quote from Obama wildly out of context. How far out of context you ask? Well the quote is from 2008, at it was about how the McCain camp was thinking that so long as the conversation rested on the economy he would lose. Romney's ad portrayed it as a recent quote by Obama about his own reelection prospects in 2012.

Romney defended his use of the Obama quote, basically saying that context was irrelevant. So when Democrats start saturating the airwaves with his mind-bogglingly stupid quote, Romney doesn't have much of a leg to stand on to denounce them. Keep that in mind when the false outrage starts pouring out of the conservative and establishment media over Obama's supposedly taking Romney out of context.

Things That Made Me Think

Using Kurt Vonnegut  as a tool for understanding microeconomics and incentives is plane awesome, and gives me the serious nerd chills.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the idea/conclusion of the article that a pre-career tax is utility maximizing given the (completely unfounded) assumption that income=productivity, but the entire thing was enough to make me drop what I was doing and think about it for a while.

Gerrymandering is Bad Mmkay

Gerrymandering is bad. It reduces electoral competitiveness, civic engagement, and accountability. It shouldn't happen. If I were to start from scratch I'd have a system that looks something like the one in Iowa, where the maps are drawn to keep counties in one district wherever possible, and don't take into account party registration. The only difference I would make is to try to keep district lines as similar as possible to the old maps as a means of increasing voter awareness of their representatives and their district. Imperfect, sure, but far superior to the current system.

That said, in the current system, gerrymandering does happen, and it happens with brutal efficiency. Democrats gerrymandered the hell out of Illinois and Maryland, while Republicans did a number on North Carolina and Ohio. In both cases, the opposing party protested loudly and angrily that gerrymandering would destroy the democratic process by reducing competition, the essence of democracy.

And they would be correct. Since gerrymandering is done with the sole purpose of maximizing the party in power's electoral success, the party out of power should follow one singular rule: NEVER vote for the majority party's gerrymander. They might not be able to stop it, but they can make sure that the majority party can't claim bipartisanship support for a terrible map. Make lemonade out of lemons, and get some good press in the minority.

Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania it looks like Representatives Bob Brady (D-Philadelphia) and Mike Doyle (D-Allegheny) are encouraging their fellow Democrats to do a cardinal sin and vote for the Republican's gerrymander. What is worse is that the maps could fail if they don't gather enough Democratic support in the state House. There is absolutely no reason why that Brady and Doyle should twist arms on behalf of Republicans. If the maps are going to fail, let them fail. The current gerrymander is so horrible that any change that Republicans are forced to make would be a substantial improvement over the current map.

How bad of a gerrymander is it you ask? Well, this picture of the new 7th Congressional District tells the whole story.

That vomit inkblot nightmare is worse then I could have possibly imagined, and I was expecting some ugly districts to come out of Harrisburg this cycle.

So Reps. Brady and Doyle, if you are actually twisting arms to get this monstrosity passed, stop it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. If this passes because of Democratic votes, we know who to blame for our electoral failure for the next ten years. So seriously, cut this shit out.

(h/t DKos Elections)

Boycott Lowe's

Not like I shop there anyway, but this is just ridiculous.

Jon Huntsman Is Not A Moderate

I have a lot of liberal friends who say that if Jon Huntsman were the Republican nominee, they would seriously consider voting for him. They consider the fact that he was a part of the Obama Administration as Ambassador to China. They look at the way he talks, and the way he presents himself.  And he does projet a Serious, moderate image. The only problem with this image is that it is a mirage, the mirage is beginning to fade.

7 Layers of Douche

So when a livery cab driver gets shot three times, this might not be the best response.

Picking up street hails in the outer boroughs is not legal and will never be a good idea.

I know the Taxi federation is opposed to a new class of outer borough taxis, but seriously c'mon guys, this is really not the time to be preaching.

Nothing Like A Good Dems Divided Story...

Except that Bernie Sandars isn't a Democrat...whoops.

An Open Letter To The Independent Democratic Caucus

Dear Senators Klein, Savino, Carlucci, and Valesky

Hi. How are you doing? I know you've had a fairly good year. You started the "Independent Democratic Caucus" and got lots of press attention. Nice. You also all got committee chairmanships in exchange for basically voting with the Republicans on every procedural issue in the Senate, including a State Constitutional Amendment to create an independent redistricting commission that would only go into effect for the 2020 redistricting period, thus totally screwing over the good government ideals you claim to hold oh so dear. Well done. Gold stars all around.

Now the New York Daily News is reporting that you've taken this alliance a step further.

The Daily News has learned Senate Republican bosses have agreed not to put up — or fund — strong candidates next year against the four Democrats who created their own independent caucus this year. 

The four rogue Democrats will not back current Democratic leader John Sampson (D-Brooklyn) or Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Chairman Michael Gianaris (D-Queens) for majority leader if the Dems take control of the chamber, the source said. 

I think I've seen this movie before. Let's go over how it ended for each of the conspirators.

Pedro Espada lost the Democratic Primary in 2010, lost his seat in the Senate, and is now under federal inditement for embezzlement and fraud.

Hiram Monserrate was convicted of slashing his girlfriend, got expelled from the Senate, and lost the subsequent race to regain his open seat by a fairly substantial margin. 

Carl Kruger is under federal inditement for bribery.

Ruban Diaz is the world's biggest homophobe, but has exclaimed on multiple occasions that the reaction to the IDC proves that the reaction to the "Gang of Four" was partially driven by racism against Hispanics.

Now I hate to say it, but Diaz might just have a point. The "Gang of Four" was all about hostage taking, and enriching themselves and their power, but they shrouded their selfish intentions in a woven cape of racial empowerment. You all have no standing here. You all represent White, suburban style districts. And you are saying you won't vote for John Sampson, a Black Senator. That really doesn't look good.

The only point that you might have to stand on is the illusory notion that you are supporting "bipartisan governing" and "good government" in general. Except you aren't. On multiple occasions you enabled the Republican Majority to take naked power grabs, as in the case of stripping the Lieutenant Governor the ability to break ties, and delaying the creation of an independent redistricting commission until 2020, as a gerrymander is the only way the Republicans can possibly  maintain power in New York State.

Plus, bipartisanship should not be the end for you. The goal should be progressive governance, inclusive governance, moral governance. The goal should be better schools, better infrastructure, better higher paying jobs, equal opportunity, racial equality, a greener environment.

The modern Republican Party wants none of these things. Even in blue New York, the Republican Party stands in the way of progress. They want to cut taxes for the wealthy, while increasing the burdon on middle and working class families. They will choke money out of our schools and our public transit to line the pockets of the fortunate few. And they'll do it with a smile, and your consent.

The last basion of Republican power in New York is the Senate. If we break them here, we break them in New York for a generation. We can truly see a progressive era come to New York. But all you want is personal power, at the expense of the principles you campaign for, and were elected on. You forgot the Democratic part of the Independent Democratic Caucus. If you don't want be a member of the Democratic Party or the Democratic Caucus, I'm happy to show you the door. And so will thousands of other progressive activists.

Sincerely,

P.Swift

Perry Joins the Mythic Order of the Supply Side Genies

Like George W. Bush and T-Paw before him, Rick Perry has declared that tax cuts pay for themselves because the awesome and mysterious forces of the Supply Side Genies will bost economic growth so much that tax revenues won't actually fall when we implement an insane half-baked flat tax that is really another backdoor tax cut for the rich.

Just to be clear, tax cuts, especially ones like this, don't even come close to fully paying for themselves with increased economic activity. The CBO under my favorite wonk-turned-hack ever, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, tried to score the Bush Tax Cuts using dynamic analysis, the preferred methodology of the Mythic Order of the Supply Side Genies, and even he couldn't figure out a way to say the tax cuts paid for themselves.

So the next time you hear somebody claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, give them a hug and tell them that Genies simply don't exist.