What Digby Said

WTF is Obama doing praising Reagan?

An Exercize in Cognitive Dissonance

To continue the transportation theme from earlier: does anyone else find it amusing that the recently renamed 22N Illini heads South on Goodwin, and that the 22S Illini heads North on Goodwin?

Myself, I never had a problem figuring out where the 22 Illini Engineering and the 22 Illini VetMed/PAR-FAR via First went.

Campus Bus Reroute

Via the News-Gazette:

Effective this month, Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District buses instead are driving – and stopping – along Goodwin Avenue, one block to the east, instead of the stretch of Mathews south of Green to Nevada Street. Mathews is the first north-south street east of the Quad.

....

As for the buses, the affected routes include the 2 Red Weekday; 20 Red Saturday; 8 Orchard Downs Weekday; 80 Orchard Downs Evening, Saturday, and Sunday; 21 Quad; and 24 Scamp.

The timetables for the affected bus routes will stay the same.

The new stops are on Goodwin Avenue, one block east of Mathews. In 2009 the city of Urbana is planning to update Goodwin Avenue, between Clark Street and Gregory Drive, to make it more friendly to pedestrians, bicyclists and bus users.

I agree with the University's and the MTD's reason for moving the routes, but one thing that didn't make it into the story is that the bus stops along Goodwin have been re-arranged, with what appears to be a net loss of stops. This atually does make sense - as there's more or less double the number of busses stopping along the street, having all of them move and then stop every hundred feet would drastically slow down traffic. The new stops, which have large clearances on the street to pull out of traffic, are well marked. The problem is that the MTD is relying on its bus drivers to tell riders, mostly students but some faculty/staff too, that certain stops are being discontinued, and that's it. Those busses are usually crowded, at least at peak times, so having the drivers tell the passengers is a less than ideal solution. What the MTD should do is make some laminated signs and post them at the old stops to tell riders that they can't catch a bus there anymore. This'll ease the transition, since relying on word of mouth is rather unreliable.

Also, since all the buses are gone from Matthews, UIUC needs to move the University Stop. It's an important and functional part of the university's heritage, and, seriously, no one's going to sit there now without the buses coming by.

Signs of Life in the Democratic Congress

TPMMuckraker is reporting, via the Washington Post, that the House is set to actually move on Contempt of Congress charges "against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for their refusal to appear before Congress for questioning about the 2006 removal of nine U.S. attorneys."

Hopefully the Democratic Leadership will use Congress' Inherent Contempt powers, as Bush has already instructed the Justice Department to ignore any Statutory Contempt charges filed by Congress. That the proceedings are being pursued in the House of Representatives is a good sign that this may be so: Inherent Contempt trials are held by the chamber pressing the charges, and are run by the presiding officer of that chamber. Speaker Pelosi would be the best to handle this, as I doubt that Dick Cheney would let the President Pro Temp of the Senate deal with a contempt trial against an administration official.

Newsflash: Bush Tax Cuts Did Nothing to Help the Economy

Paul Krugman has a couple of posts up on the effects of the Bush tax cuts. The first, and more important one, shows how the cuts did next to nothing to benefit the economy. The second is on the permanency of the tax cuts being a bad thing. Go have a read.

Shorter Illinois Review

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


The not-so-short-version: Fran at Illinois Review put up a rant about the people picking on her poor John Bambenek that barely, just barely, manages to be coherent. I'm not sure anyone has made sense of it yet, though - and people have tried.

Viral Advertising for Biologists

Via Orac, here's a "music video" in the vein of "Feed the World" that extols the virtues of PCR.



For the maybe three readers of mine who found it funny, the lyrics are here, and there's also a higher-quality video.

For My Michigan Readers

You need to watch this, if only because it will upset John Bambenek:



Best quote: "Catch this guy on the right day and he's Che-frikkin'-Guevara"

Remember, your primary's tomorrow, so go out and vote Mitt!

Bambenek Implosion Roundup

It might not be the most charitable characteristic of mine, but I really enjoy watching willfully stupid people receive the consequences of their actions. John Bambenek, who decided to make a frivolous complaint against DailyKos to the Michigan AG, received his consequences starting at just before 3pm, when diarist Adam B at DailyKos [who is apparently DailyKos' lawyer - you learn something every day -ed.] posted a takedown of John's arguments for the benefit of his fellow Kossaks. Up until then, John was being schooled in his choices of Federal Case Law to cite by another local blogger, Prairie Biker, but after the diary went up an influx of Kossaks came over to see the stupid that Mr. Bambenek posted, with quite a few leaving comments. At about that time, John went into hiding, and he has not, to my knowledge, posted anything since - other than to repost his original announcement onto his own blog, presumably to fend off the vile nasty Kossaks who are even less nice than I am about pointing out the flaws of his argument.

It has also been brought to my attention that this is not the first time that John has engaged in legal stupidity against DailyKos. The same Adam B emailed me early this morning (sorry, but I usually don't check that email address at work) and linked to commentary on the last stunt Mr. Bambenek pulled - arguing to the FEC that DailyKos was a political entity. This was quite rightly smacked down by the FEC, and though he swore he'd appeal once he was over his hissy-fit he apparently decided not to follow up on it.

Myself, I wonder what, if any, response the Michigan AG's office will have to this sorry mess. My guess is that they'll send John a nice letter that effectively says, "Um, no, what are you smoking?" and that John will refuse to post the letter for all to see.

UPDATE: For those who wish to see the Kossaks pile on John even more, you can do so here.

Taking Law School Classes Does Not a Lawyer Make

John Bambenek is a local blogger who tries oh-so-very-hard to be like Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly, and other conservative talk show hosts. John's problem is that his chosen medium is the written word, both newspaper columns and blog posts, which, as slower-paced media, allow for fact-checking. Unlike those he chooses to emulate, John is not in a position to make remarks backed up by squat and then move on to the next thing without being challenged. He tries to anyway, and what usually happens is this:

1. John writes something that is, at first pass, clever, but is really very stupid and not based in what the rest of us call reality.
   
2. Someone or some group of people call John on how specious his reasoning is.
3. John backpedals and choses one of two options:

• He responds, "That's not what I said/meant," when any informed observer can see otherwise.
• He finds things that are related to what he is talking about, cites them as if they actually back him up, and claims victory.

As one might surmise, John and I have crossed pens before, on one of my favorite topics. While for that exchange he took the first option under point 3, Mr. Bambenek has gotten himself into yet another spot and gone for the second option. It seems that John, based upon his having taken a couple Law School classes, thinks himself qualified to write letters to state Attorney Generals interpreting their state's laws without making an ass out of himself.

More specifically, this bout of poor legal logic started when John announced that he had filed a complaint against Markos Moulitsas, the "Kos" of DailyKos for encouraging Democrats to take advantage of the Open Primary in Michigan and vote for Mitt Romney. The gist of John's argument is this:

Moulitsas' call could be felonious. Michigan state law clearly indicates that unqualified electors voting in elections is a felony. It also specifies that counseling or aiding someone to vote in an election they are unqualified for is also a felony. Election law clearly specifies that to vote in a party's primary, one must actually belong to that party.

Compromising the power of the vote in this country is a direct attack on the very foundation of our freedom. While much can be said about the closed primary system of which I am no fan, it is the law of the land and undermining that system for partisan gain is an invidious attempt to disenfranchise voters, and simply cannot be allowed to stand.

The parties do have free association rights which allow them the constitutional right to declare who are and are not members and, by extension, those who cannot interfere in the workings of that political organization. Republicans alone should choose Republican candidates. Democrats alone should choose Democrat candidates. The same goes for third parties.

In the comments on that post, a number of commenters bring up various arguments based on state statutes, which John then misreads or cherry-picks from to promote his own position. However, what I find most illustrative is the actual complaint he sent to the Michigan Attorney General. In it, we find the following deliciously wrong sentence:

Michigan state law 168.534 specifies who qualified electors for primary elections are, and not surprisingly, qualified electors may only vote in primaries for the party in which they are members of.

Michigan AG Mike Cox (or one of his staffers) will likely be surprised when he reads this letter, as 168.234 in fact says this:

A general primary of all political parties except as provided in sections 532 and 685 shall be held in every election precinct in this state on the Tuesday after the first Monday in August before every general November election, at which time the qualified and registered voters of each political party may vote for party candidates for the office of governor, United States senator, representative in congress, state senator, representative in the legislature, county executive, prosecuting attorney, sheriff, county clerk, county treasurer, register of deeds, county auditor, drain commissioner, public works commissioner, county road commissioner, county mine inspector, surveyor, and candidates for office in townships. A nomination for an office shall be made only if the official is to be elected at the next succeeding general November election.

Note that the wording is different - there is no limitation of electors (what MI state statute calls voters) to vote for their own party's candidates, the law only states that they may vote for party candidates. Further, this statute does not apply to Presidential primaries, as that office is omitted.

More evidence of the openness of the Michigan primary is seen in 168.575:

After the polls are opened at a primary election, any elector who is legally registered and qualified shall, before entering the booth or voting compartment, be furnished a party ballot, together with any other ballot or ballots to be voted at that primary election.

Here, too, the article "a" is used, rather than any posessive adjective, leaving an elector the legal option of choosing any party ballot, not necessarily his own.

Both Sections 534 and 575, as well as many other sections throughout the election code, make use of the phrase "registered and qualified", or variations thereof, to describe electors. This phrase is defined in section 492, which lays out the qualifications for registering as an elector:

Every person who has the following qualifications of an elector, or who will have those qualifications at the next election or primary election, shall be entitled to be registered as an elector in the township, city, or village in which he or she resides. The person shall be a citizen of the United States; not less than 18 years of age; a resident of the state for not less than 30 days; and a resident of the township, city, or village on or before the thirtieth day before the next regular or special election or primary election.

One will note that party status has nothing to do with the qualifications of an elector - so John's assertion that "qualified electors may only vote in primaries for the party in which they are members of" seems odd in that, by its inclusion, he highlights the adjective "qualified" as if it means something beyond the basic requirements for voting in the state of Michigan.

Further nails in John's argument are hammered home by Section 615c, of which subsections 1 and 2 read as:

(1) In order to vote at a presidential primary, an elector shall indicate in writing, on a form prescribed by the secretary of state, which participating political party ballot he or she wishes to vote when appearing to vote at a presidential primary. In fulfilling the requirements of this subsection, the secretary of state shall prescribe procedures intended to protect or safeguard the confidentiality of the participating political party ballot selected by an elector consistent with this section.

(2) An elector shall not be challenged at a presidential primary based upon the participating political party ballot selected by the elector. An elector may be challenged only to the extent authorized under section 727.

Not only is the elector merely stating what ballot he or she wants, but challenges to that choice are explicitly stated to be illegal. The legal bases for challenges are listed under section 727, subsection 1:

(1) An election inspector shall challenge an applicant applying for a ballot if the inspector knows or has good reason to suspect that the applicant is not a qualified and registered elector of the precinct, or if a challenge appears in connection with the applicant's name in the registration book. A registered elector of the precinct present in the polling place may challenge the right of anyone attempting to vote if the elector knows or has good reason to suspect that individual is not a registered elector in that precinct. An election inspector or other qualified challenger may challenge the right of an individual attempting to vote who has previously applied for an absent voter ballot and who on election day is claiming to have never received the absent voter ballot or to have lost or destroyed the absent voter ballot.

Your eyes do not deceive you, there is no reference to party affiliation in that statute either. Neither is there in any other election statute that I could find, though I encourage everyone to look for themselves.

At this point, it seems rather certain to a person (such as myself) doing a plain reading of these statutes that, as far as Michigan state law is concerned, Michigan's open primary is precisely that, open. Although I readily admit that open primaries are stupid, it is the choice of the people of the State of Michigan, and their elected representatives, to have such a system. While cross-over voting does violate the spirit of the primary, there is no legal barrier to it, and both parties have engaged in such activities in Michigan in the past with no legal repercussions.

This brings us to the allegation that John brings against Kos, that Markos has committed a felony by violating 168.932a, subsection c:

(c) A person who is not a qualified and registered elector shall not willfully offer to vote or attempt to vote at an election held in this state. A person shall not aid or counsel a person who is not a qualified and registered elector to vote or offer to vote at the place where the vote is given during an election.

Again, this law rests upon the definition of a "qualified and registered elector". As we saw in section 492, this merely deals with age, citizenship, and residency, with nothing to do with party status or affiliation at all. As Kos has not encouraged anyone to fraudulently vote under section 492, he has not violated section 932a.

Having demonstrated that John Bambenek is quite blatantly wrong, one wonders why he engaged in this little stunt at all. While I have no doubt that John will see fit to enlighten us as to his logic (or lack thereof), I can think of a few scenarios.

1. John was alarmed by what he read at DailyKos, checked the MI statutes, did not read section 492, projected his own preconceptions onto the text of sections 234 and 932a, and then filed his complaint in good faith.
2. John saw what Kos had posted, wanted to score some quick political points, read sections 234 and 932a as confirming his thoughts, did not bother to find and read section 492, and sent off his letter thinking to cause Kos some legal problems at the expense of the state of Michigan.
3. John saw what Kos had posted, read all applicable laws including section 492, and decided to send off his letter to the Michigan Attorney General anyway and post about such on his blog in the hope of creating some bad press for DailyKos - discrediting the site and discouraging people from engaging in crossover voting.

Myself, I currently lean towards the second explanation, as it is suggested by John's consistent misreading of the law. I am open to being convinced that either of the other scenarios, or even ones I did not think of, are actually the case.

If you go John's original post, I posted a rough version of the legal analysis section post as a comment.

A major kudos goes out to the anonymous commenter on an earlier thread that pointed out this whole mess to me.

Also - brownie points go out to any/all readers of mine who can find out what John was saying when Laurel Prussing was running in the Democratic primary for Mayor of Urbana and all the local Republicans were up in arms about Prussing's people enforcing the closed primary.

UPDATE: Wow, this exploded, with the mess landing on John. Now we wait and see how toxic the fallout will be for him.

The Second America

CNN.com is apparently kicking off a series of articles titled "Behind the Scenes" which, according to the site, is intended to let "CNN Correspondents share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events." (I say apparently becuase a Google search of cnn "Behind the Scenes" reveals no other stories in this series.)

Anyhow, this inaugural story is about the side of Palestine that President Bush did not see when he visited the area. While I applaud any depiction of how the average Palestinian is getting the shaft by the current situation, I think that there is a better direction to go with this series: do a Behind the Scenes on the America that Bush never sees. Better yet, do a whole series. They can start with New Orleans, since the city still isn't rebuilt yet. Next would be a focus on the thousands of men and women going back to Iraq for a third tour, followed by a report on how the VA is still trying to skimp on giving soldiers disability benefits. Next they could focus on the stories of some young U.S. Citizens whose illegal immigrant parents were taken from them to provide Lou Dobbs and the GOP with some PR and talking points. Wrapping up the series might be a look at the Urban Poor in Washington D.C., and go places in the White House's back yard that the presidential motorcade never will.

But alas, pointing out still more proof that poor management and trickle-down economics are synergistic in their suckiness would be considered partisan as opposed to real journalism, and the media can't stand being called liberal.

What We Need for Dubya

Is something along the lines of "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?" It needs to be short, catchy, and an earworm, so that not only would the entire crop of candidates be scared of keeping us in Iraq for fear of the backlash, but also the media would be forced to pay attention to people chanting it every time Bush went anywhere.

I've tried, but Bush, Dubya, and George are all hard to find rhymes for, let alone ones that make sense.

Shorter Kos

The Democratic primary in Michigan doesn't mean anything - the DNC stripped it of its delegates for moving the primary ahead of February 5th and Hillary's the only one on the ballot. So, if you, or any of your friends, would normally vote Democratic in Michigan, take a GOP ballot instead and vote for Mitt Romney. They've done it to us in Michigan, repeatedly, and what goes around comes around. Mitt's the best for this because a Michigan win keeps him in the race, and the more the GOP bickers amongst itself and wastes money, the better.

(And, though that's somewhere around 8x as long as your regular "shorter ______" post, the post by Kos is still really long.)

Evolution Education for Everyone

Lauded in both Science and Nature, the National Academy of Sciences recently released the third edition of its booklet aimed at educating the public on Evolution, entitled "Science, Evolution, and Creationism." You can buy it, or you can read it free online. It's twice as long as the last edition, published in 1999, and those extra pages are spent using recent research to illustrate the concepts involved, among other things.

UPDATE: I somehow managed to miss the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' own glowing review of the booklet. That article also has a link to the results of the Coalition of Scientific Societies' Evolution in Science Education Survey, as well as some reports, presentations, and the like that came from the survey. I've not yet had time to look at those (I don't blog while working and I'm set to leave town for the weekend) but when I get around to it I may write up a review of them if I'm impressed.

The Almighty Narrative

While we're waiting for the New Hampshire results to come in, here's something to chew on: Glenn Greenwald points out the Edwards surge that nobody is talking about. (Kudos to Avedon at Eschaton.)

Edwards -- who, just one week ago, was 10 points behind Obama nationally among Democrats -- is now only two points behind him. Less than a month ago, he trailed Clinton by 29 points. Now it's 13 points. He is, by far, at his high point of support nationwide. Apparently, the more exposure Democratic voters get to Edwards and his campaign positions -- and that exposure has been at its high point during his surge -- the more they like him. By contrast, Obama is more or less at the same level of support nationally, even having decreased some since his Iowa win (for most of mid-Decemeber, he was at 27-28 points).

Yet to listen to media reports, Edwards doesn't even exist. His campaign is dead. He has no chance. They hate Edwards, hate his message, and thus rendered him invisible long ago, only now to declare him dead -- after he came in second place in the first caucus of the campaign.

There are certainly horse-race counterarguments to all of this. This is only one poll. Obama is ahead in New Hampshire, where his support has increased, etc. etc.

But I'm not focusing on the accuracy of horse-race predictions here, but instead, on the fact that the traveling press corps endlessly imposes its own narrative on the election, thereby completely excluding from all coverage plainly credible candidates they dislike (such as Edwards) while breathlessly touting the prospects of the candidates of whom they are enamored. Their predictions (i.e., preferences and love affairs) so plainly drive their press coverage -- the candidates they love are lauded as likely winners while the ones they hate are ignored or depicted as collapsing -- which in turn influences the election in the direction they want, making their predictions become self-fulfilling prophecies.

It's just all a completely inappropriate role for political reporters to play, yet it composes virtually the entirety of their election coverage.

That's just an excerpt; go read the whole thing.

While I'm posting this largely because I support Edwards, everyone should be incensed that the media is so caught up in the narrative of who they want to see win that they neglect to report on what's actually going on. I'd suggest contacting various media outlets about this, but as they're so wrapped up in saying what they want to say, the facts be damned, I'm not sure they'd listen.

Chief Logo Shenannigans

I didn't catch Saturday's News-Gazette, but Illinipundit did, and he caught the story on the Chief logo's creator suing the university to get the rights back from the Board of Trustees. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but what's interesting about the article is actually what it says on the UofI's plans for the logo:

[U]niversity officials and lawyers have been working with Collegiate Licensing Company to add the Chief logo to the company's College Vault program. College Vault licenses vintage collegiate logos, emblems and other images.

"We have not made final decisions on specific products or volume going forward, but we will continue to offer merchandise in select apparel, non-apparel and headwear categories," Kaler said.

-snip-

Kaufman also said such marketing would violate the UI Board of Trustees March 13, 2007, resolution calling for the elimination of the Chief and it would violate the NCAA policy prohibiting schools with "hostile or abusive" imagery from hosting postseason competitions or displaying the nicknames, logos or mascots at those events.

-snip-

If the university signs an agreement with College Vault to license the Chief Illiniwek merchandise, the Chief items would be sold online only. Such use is in accordance with NCAA and university policies, Kaler said.

Calls left for NCAA officials were not immediately returned Friday.

Last February, after UI Board Chairman Lawrence Eppley announced the end of Chief Illiniwek, the NCAA issued a release stating that if the university no longer used Chief Illiniwek and related American Indian imagery in athletics, the university would be in full compliance with the NCAA's policy.

What everyone is waiting on is for the NCAA to respond and say whether or not UofI's continued sale of Chief merchandise online really is in accordance with NCAA policy. If it is, I'd be disappointed in the NCAA. How is allowing online sales substantially different from allowing sales in meatspace? We all know that the die-hard Chief fans will flock to the online site to buy the most-likely overpriced "vintage" apparel just to get their fix of racist clothing, and since the University - and the NCAA! - would be sponsoring it, the University would still be fostering a Hostile and Abusive atmosphere. My own view is that, given enough time without a white guy jumping around in a costume down on the field, the student body itself will get over the loss of its mascot - but allowing a source of Chief memorabilia to remain will, just like the Marching Illini's continued use of the Three-in-One, contribute to and extend the rather pathetic hanging-on to the Chief that his supporters currently exhibit.

Is It Time for a Change?

Via Orac, the website io9.com has a graph up charting how often our favorite Time Lord has overthrown the government on the planet of the week, expressed as revolutions/series.

Meanwhile, I really need to get around to watching the 2007 Christmas Special - though I doubt it holds a candle to the Children in Need special preceding it.



(Note: BBC has some good lawyers, so watch it before they get this version taken down, or else you'll have to wait for the Series Three DVD.)

The Next Time Someone Says "Racism is Dead"

...whack them upside the head and have them read this post by Glenn Greenwald on the cryptoracist droppings about Obama currently being laid by GOP shills in the media. (Kudos to Digby for the link.)

UPDATE: David Neiwert of Orcinus chimes in, and uses the opportunity to talk and drop hyperlinks about the people who are already saying they'll try to assassinate Obama if he's elected.

No Debate Blogging Here

I decided to keep up my streak and miss the candidate debates over the weekend, since I'd missed all the other ones as well. I've already done my research - the proposed policies of the major three candidates are virtually the same, the "message" is what differs, and one well-timed jab is not going to change what I think about the candidates. On top of that, I also had something much better to do with my time, but that's besides point.

In the meanwhile, we can all marvel how an undemocractic process in one state can affect the democractic process in another state and, between the two, determine who the media will say is the next candidate, even before the vast majority of this country heads to the polls.

Ideas for a Top Graphic

As you can see, I put the flag back up on top of the sidebar. After doing so, I noticed how plain and excessively left-justified the title for the blog is. I'd like to have a spiffy graphic to put there, that'll look cool, be at least tangentally related to the site, and not cheapen the US Flag that'll sit right beneath it. (Actually, a picture of a flag to replace the graphic might be a thought...)

Anyhow, I'm open to suggestions if anyone has them. Donations of artwork will also be appreciated.