if you want to change people's habits don't give them the option of not changing

if the u.s. government wants people to use dollar coins all they have to do is stop making dollar bills. a gimmick like having a series of coins with presidential faces obviously won't work. when was the last time you considered using a different denomination or coin just because of the picture on the front?

if given a choice between a bill and a coin, people will choose a bill because: (a) a bill weighs less, (b) a dollar bill is what they are used to, and (c) bills are mentally associated with "real money" (i.e. more valuable money) because they are like twenties, fifties or one hundred dollar bills, and not like less valuable quarters dimes, nickles or pennies.if you want to get coins to catch on, you need to stop giving people a choice to use bills. eventually people will get used to the coins and will use them and will stop wishing they had dollar bills. these days no one pines for the five dollar coins because we're used to using five dollar bills.

besides, discontinuing the dollar bill is how canada did it. also, we should call our dollar coins "loonies".

consistency counts

the NYT article is on A15, so the appeals court must have upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act.

it wasn't on the front page of the WaPo either. in fact, searching that newspaper's site, the only mention of the sixth circuit decision on the entire web site is ezra klein's blog post. apparently the appellate victory didn't even merit an article.

UPDATE: steve benen has been making the same point about the discrepancy in the coverage of the health care act rulings more than i have. apparently, the WaPo had an article about the appellate decision on A5. read benen's post to see how consistently pro-health act court decisions have been less emphasized than anti-health act decisions in the NYT, WaPo, AP and politico. it's a pretty remarkable pattern.

the new isolationism

the redefinition of "isolationism" continues! david greenberg now claims that the idea that the u.s. should withdraw its armed forces from a country ten years after it invaded and after it achieved both stated goals at the time of the invasion (i.e. capturing or killing bin laden and toppling the taliban regime that sheltered him) is isolationist. as is opposing military action in libya and considering (but not yet voting for, nor even making a concrete proposal to) cuts in the a military budget that currently is about as large as what the rest of the world spends combined.

on top of that, greenberg's definition of isolationism, "a stance that rejects America’s leadership role in the world", is weirdly american-centric. does that mean that russia is isolationist? or maybe he means that isolationism is the stance that rejects one's own country's leadership role in the world. in that case, russia would not be isolationist because it still sees itself as a world leader. but that would mean that countries that have no illusions that they are not world powers are isolationist. so israel, uzbekistan, canada, sweden, rwanda, hell, almost every country except for a handful of world powers and world power wannabes, is isolationist. if we take that definition seriously a country can be isolationist while it is invading its neighbor.

can any GOP presidential candidate win his/her home state?

alaskans prefer obama over palin.

perry is trailing obama in texas.

christie is extremely unpopular in new jersey and would lose his state to obama in a presidential race.

both pawlenty and bachmann would lose minnesota.

romney gets creamed by obama in massachusetts.

obama is ahead of both herman cain and newt gingrich in georgia.

santorum would lose pennsylvania.

i can't find a poll of obama vs. huntsman in utah. (but how many people still think he can get the nomination?)

ADDENDUM (for elliej): obama is also beating gary johnson in new mexico.

justices agree a lot more than they disagree

the part of this chart that really jumped out at me is the number in the left chart for ginsburg-alito, the two justices who disagreed the most in the most recent supreme court term:

(click to embiggen)

i was surprised to see that ginsburg and alito agreed 63% of the time. that's a much higher percentage than i would have guessed for a court that is supposedly so polarized.

"government doesn't create any jobs"

that's a weird thing for someone who holds a government job to say. putting situations where the government private sector jobs (like jobs created by government construction and service contracts), doesn't perry realize that the government itself is an employer?

its own worst enemy

i don't understand why israel is making such a big deal about the latest gaza flotilla. the only "threat" it poses is the international publicity it brings to israel's blockade of gaza. but israel's promise to use force against the activists, officials' ridiculous exaggerations about the threats posed by the flotilla, israel's attempts to pressure companies that supply services to the boats, its ham-handed threats against journalists who might cover a clearly newsworthy event (now rescinded after it unsurprisingly generated further bad press), and its possible attempts to sabotage the boats before they leave, all are generating more attention to the flotilla, and by extension the gaza blockade issue, than it would otherwise get.

israel's total freak-out about this makes no sense at all. the entire flotilla is basically just raise-awareness campaign. by reacting this way, israel is helping the activists raise international awareness and cast israel is a really bad light.

actual news headlines vs. fox news headlines

i still don't know why people persist in calling it a news channel.

her waterloo

normally i'm not one to bug a politician because of a mere gaffe. everyone makes mistakes. people who are in the public eye all the time are bound to do a bunch of embarrassing things. we all would under those circumstances. it just doesn't tell us all that much about the individual candidate when they screw up.

but man,as gaffes go, this one is a doozy.

taraz-five

i'm heading to the northlands for a half-reunion. maybe i'll post from there, or maybe not. barring sasquatch attack or separatist bombing, i should make it home by sunday.

wishing for a do-nothing congress

as many others have pointed out, if we do nothing the deficit will mostly go away. that's because the bush tax cuts (which were supposed to expire at the end of 2010 before they were extended for two years) will expire at the end of 2012 and the cost control measures of the ACA will kick in. the republicans are trying hard to both extend the tax cuts indefinitely and repeal and/or undermine the ACA. the entire "deficit crisis" is of their own making. it only exists because the republicans are insisting on massive tax cuts for the wealthiest americans and huge cuts for services that middle class and poor americans need.

the good news is gridlock and doing nothing happens to be the one thing that congress is really good at. if you want to balance the budget, all democrats need to do is throw a monkey wrench in everything that the GOP tries to do. maybe if we keep saying that the democrats will learn that they really have the upper hand if they are just willing to take it.

overstated conclusion of the day

UPDATE: oops, i mixed up my + and - with malloy from connecticut. d'oh! thanks for pointing that out in the comments CaTHY! it doesn't change my already shaky conclusion, but i did have to rewrite a bit of this post.

the chart of the day at TPM documents how the new GOP governors all seem to be tanking in the polls.

what an awesome chart! it tells me just what i want to hear, that people might be fooled into voting for the republicans but hate it when they see how they actually govern.

except that the chart doesn't necessarily say that. it could be that politicians' support usually erodes once they transition from candidate to office-holder, especially when the economy continues to suck after they take office.

i was curious which interpretation is right, so i tried to look up the approval ratings of the 7 democratic governors who were newly elected in 2010 to see if they do any better or worse. that way i could untangle whether people really hate the GOP or just hate incumbents in this economy. for consistency sake (and to make it easier for me), i'm using TPM's own collected polling data.

CO (hickenlooper): 52.0% approval-2/6/11 PPP (pre-election: 51% (10/31/10 PPP)) [+1%]

CT (malloy): 38.0% approval-6/13/11 quinnipiac (pre-election: 46.0% (10/31/10 quinnipiac)) [+8% -8%]

HI (abercrombie): 48.0% approval-3/27/11 PPP (pre-election: 49.5% (10/23/10 merriman)) [-1.5%]

MN (dayton): 42.0% approval-6/17/11 survey USA (pre-election: 43.0% (10/29/10 PPP)) [-1%]

NY (cuomo): 61.0% approval-5/30/11 quinnipiac (pre-election: 56.2% (10/31/10 YouGov)) [+4.8%]

OR (kitzhaber): no post-election polls (pre-election:46.0% (10/31/10 DH&M)) [n/a]

VT (shumlin): no post election polls (pre-election: 53.0% (10/31/10 rasmussen)) [n/a]

although there is not enough data to tell for kitzhaber and shumlin, none of the 5 dems for which there is post-election polling numbers can be said to be "tanking". 2 of the 5 had their approval rating go up since they entered office and two of the governors that suffered a loss of approval, that loss was 1.5% or less, which is within the margin of error and thus might not exist at all.

only one dem governor showed any significant loss of popularity, and that was connecticut governor malloy. but the worst loss for the dems (malloy) is comparable to the best of the GOP group. (AZ gov brewer).

overstated conclusion from paltry data: it's not just anti-incumbency in a bad economy. people hate being governed by republicans. unfortunately, voters are sometimes fooled into voting for them before realizing just how shitty they are.

pawlenty just keeps trying

whenever i read about pawlenty, i get this mental image of a short person standing behind a bunch of taller people and jumping up and down furiously yelling "look at me! look at me!"

maybe that's all that running for president as a non-front runner is.

hey, while i'm on the subject, can anyone explain to me why pawlenty is a serious enough candidate to participate in the debates and be regularlyincluded in polls of the GOP race, but gary johnson is not? or, for that matter, why is herman cain a serious candidate but johnson is not? it's a total mystery to me why johnson is getting such a raw deal. i thought all former governors are automatically deemed to be serious. i bet if jimmy mcmillan decided to run for president he would get more attention than johnson is now.

getting out

obama gave a speech last night announcing the withdrawal of u.s. forces from afghanistan beginning immediately but then stretching out for another three years before it will finally be done. some left blogistanis, like susie, seem to be saying that the withdrawal timetable should be faster. meanwhile the media is characterizing the president's draw down plan as speedy. (e.g. "The troop reductions, which were decided after a short but fierce internal debate, will be both deeper and faster than the recommendations made by Mr. Obama’s military commanders")

personally, i have no idea what a fast, slow, or medium rate of withdrawal from afghanistan would be. if you're not willing to simply evacuate all the soldiers and support personnel on the first transport out (which would expose them to a great deal of vulnerability during the withdrawal and leave a lot of stuff behind) and want to do a more thorough withdrawal, meaning the disassembling of bases, the removal of weaponry and equipment, as well as safely and methodically pulling out u.s. personnel, then i understand it will take time. i'm just not sure what a reasonable period of time for a "quick" exit would be. as with the iraq withdrawal, the more important thing for me is that there is a timetable for withdrawal and that the president sticks to it. i really have no way of judging whether schedule itself is too long. if anyone has any insight on why this timetable is too long, i'd be happy to hear it.

perhaps a sign that i spent too long in kazakhstan

i can see why this would be offensive (but i'm not saying that i think the newspaper should be closed or otherwise penalized for it)

the most basic lesson of modern politics

if you're going to run for president, you got to grab the url before your critics do.

he didn't even have a gub

reading stories like this makes me embarrassed for my country.

(via susie)

UPDATE: one dollar is not enough to qualify as bank robbery. d'oh! still, it looks like he's getting some medical care with his larceny from a person charge. when he needs a major operation, i guess he will have to demand the big bucks.

if we're shooting, it's hostilities

i guess i hadn't gotten around to mentioning this yet, but it's pretty clear that the obama administration's war powers act argument that the u.s. is not engaged in "hostilities" in libya is complete bullshit.

scalia's non-restraint part MCXXIV

dahlia lithwick on today's walmart decision:

He [Justice Scalia] asserts that "left to their own devices most managers in any corporation—and surely most managers in a corporation that forbids sex discrimination—would select sex-neutral, performance-based criteria for hiring and promotion."

it seems to me thst congress expressly reject reasoning when it passed Title VII.

it doesn't have to be this good for walmart

in theory, this decision could turn out to be a disaster for walmart. instead of dealing with the sex discrimination allegations in one big lawsuit, walmart could now face a ton of lawsuits brought individually by those 1.6 million alleged victims. in practice it won't work that way. and the fact that this case is being reported as a big victory of walmart in a sex discrimination case might create the impression that the court has dismissed the discrimination claims on the merits.

exactly

lyrics here.
(via susie)

at last

now that i am officially a father, i finally feel like i can talk about how i don't care at all about father's day with a clear conscience.

the descent of romney

the big problem with romney's 2011 pro life pledge is not just that it completely contradicts his abortion pledge of 2002:

or that romney-2011's position also seems to be at odds with his commitment-to-uphold-the-current-law-on-abortion pledge in 2005:

the problem is that in his current pledge he never explains how romney-2002 and romney-2005 became romney-2011. people change their minds sometimes. there's nothing wrong with that. but at the very least he owes the public an explanation of what happened to make him reconsider the issue and what his reasoning was.

on top of that, (as shannon o'brien points out in the top video) romney-2002's pro-choice pledge itself seemed to be a change from romney-1995, when he accepted the endorsement of massachusetts citizens for life in his senate race against ted kennedy.

in the end this really cuts to the heart of why romney-2011 felt today's pledge was even necessary. a certain portion of the GOP deeply distrusts romney, but not because he doesn't say the stuff they want him to say. if that's all it was, then a statement in the national review like the one that romney did today would have done the trick. instead, the reason they don't trust him because at one time or another he seems to have held just about every position under the sun about most issues that are important to them. a new statement of where he stands on the issue. doesn't do anything to resolve that distrust. in fact, in light of his past statements, it just reinforces their reason to distrust him.

what's taking them so long?

the wikileaks leaks have really slowed to a trickle, at least with regard to the diplomatic cables. last november, wikileaks started releasing in batches the 251,287 diplomatic cables. early on they released a bunch of new cables every day, now it's every few days and the batches seem to be getting smaller. to date only 14,829 of the total number of cables wikileaks says it has have appeared on its site, just 5.9% of the total.

so why so few after all these months? did the charges that the leaks would somehow endanger lives hit home and get the organization to take more time redacting? have julian assange's legal problems somehow caused the process to slow down? have they lost interest in the cables to concentrate more on their guantanamo and bank of america projects?

the mooddle east

that old cold war cow metaphor updated for the modern middle east.

our reputation precedes us

(via caroline on FB)

all they care about is weiner

cable news channels showing their usual aversion to covering actual issues.

we're #10!

actually, i'm not at all scared to be an atheist here. there's a big cultural divide between philly, its suburbs, pittsburgh and its suburbs, on the one hand, and the northern and central parts of the state, on the other (though pennsyltucky or the "T", as it is sometimes called, is actually a bit more diverse than it is usually given credit for by city folks)

guts

i wonder how long they can keep this stuff up before the u.s. cuts its aid package to pakistan.

greek strikers hurling yoghurt

i love it when elements from the local culture¹ are used in political protests--like last weeks' yoga-in in new delhi.

-----------------------------------------------------
1- heh. culture, yoghurt, get it? ah, never mind.

isolationism

one of my major pet peeves is how opposition to any particular war is presented as "isolationism". that's not what isolationism traditionally means, and yet that is how it is regularly used by political analysts. it's as if they think the only way to interact with the rest of the world is through violence and any country that isn't invading another must be completely disengaged from world affairs.

california needs asexual judges!

proponents of proposition 8 (i.e. opponents of same-sex marriage in california) are arguing that the decision striking down proposition 8 should be overturned because the judge who ruled in the case was in a same sex relationship and thus had an interest in the outcome of the case. by raising that argument, the pro-prop 8 folks have an internal consistency problem.

the push to outlaw gay marriage was supposedly to protect the integrity of heterosexual marriage. i've never quite understood it, but for some reason they feel that the legal recognition of gay marriage threatens the marriages of non-gay people. if they really believe that's the case, then a heterosexual judge also has an interest in the outcome of the case. the same argument they are using to disqualify judge walker because he is homosexual could be used to disqualify any heterosexual judge. so who does that leave to hear the case?

"may have been stolen"?

are there any other serious possibilities?

it's better not to ask

Police say a man was carrying a dead weasel when he burst into a Hoquiam apartment and assaulted a man.

The victim asked, "Why are you carrying a weasel?" Police said the attacker said, "It's not a weasel, it's a martin," then punched him in the nose and fled.

The attacker was apparently looking for his girlfriend and had gone to her former boyfriend's apartment Monday night where the victim was a guest.

KXRO reports he left [the] carcass behind.

(stolen from feministe)

UPDATE: police have determined that it wasn't a marten or a weasel, but a mink! so they were both wrong.

glenn's legacy?

i had assumed that mitten's fading mormon problem was just part of the overall gradual trend towards religious/ethnic tolerance in this country. but maybe atrios is right and it's beck's influence.

believe you me

the use of the phrase "believe you me" in this article (a phrase i've heard a bunch of times before, but never really gotten why it is constructed like that) got me to google up this explanation.

i never realized that english was once a VSO language.

hey remember when i used to write stuff on this blog?

okay, it's only been a few days, but it seems like a long time to me. sometimes life and work gets in the way. and sometimes i'm just not inspired to write anything. this one was a little of both.

in which i make a much too early attempt to guess the results of the GOP primary

i'm increasingly convinced the GOP nominee will be romney. romney's main constituency in the GOP is the chamber of commerce republican, the people who actually fund the party and usually call the shots from behind the scenes. romney's biggest problem are the social conservatives and true believer tea party types. they don't trust him because he's been all over the map on the stuff that they care about the most. romney was the favorite among the business faction in 2008, but the social conservatives united around huckabee, giving romney embarrassing losses in iowa and new hampshire. the business people freaked out about the prospects of huckabee and coalesced around mccain as an acceptable alternative.

which is why this is good news for romney. the more evangelical teatards in the race the harder it will be for that faction to coalesce around a single candidate and the better for him. romney himself realizes it, which is why he's hoping for palin to jump in too. romney also has the honor of being least unacceptable of the prospective candidates, which means when people's first choices drop out, romney is an acceptable alternative to more GOP voters than anyone else. so unless the wackodoodles find a way to unit under a single banner relatively early, i think it will be romney.

herman cain pledges to never sign any budget bill if elected president

a whole presidential term of government shutdowns!

cain is becoming one of my favorites among the stupid/crazy tier of presidential candidates (though they are all pretty fun)

mitten's big break

for months there has been a lot of talk about how the GOP is in a panic over their crop of presidential candidates. and who can blame them? it's getting later and later in the game and the field of republican candidates chock full of lunatics who will make incredibly weak candidates in the general election.

but that makes me wonder if this poll might assure mitt romney of the GOP nomination. it's the first poll that shows any of them in a competitive race with president obama. it's only one poll, but they're getting desperate. so this might be what mitt needs to get the party big-wigs solidly behind him (even if he can't plausibly explain away his history on health care reform, or his history on most other issues, for that matter)

walking into the trap

israel disputes toll of border clashes:

Israel said the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria was exploiting the Palestinian issue by sending unarmed protesters to the frontier in order to divert attention from its own antigovernment uprising and the bloody attempts to put it down.

that's probably true. but it doesn't explain why israel had to open fire with live ammunition on unarmed protesters.

that is what i'd truly like to be

i'm not sure why so many people care about anthony's weiner.¹ he didn't do anything illegal. you can't claim this is relevant because weiner is a hypocrite as public morality has never been one of his issues. and while flirting online with a bunch of women who are not your wife is a bad thing to do, i'm not sure why anyone should care other than his wife.

i simply have a hard time caring about this. but the mania about this does show the ridiculous tabloidization of political news coverage. (exhibit B is the wall-to-wall coverage of sarah palin driving around in a bus). the american press seems to avoid reporting on actual political issues at all costs. i don't understand why. issues are what makes politics interesting. this is why i find most tv news unwatchable.

-------------------
1-other than to joke about it of course. the guy's name is weiner ferchristsake!

hijabless

this post, about an egyptian women experimenting with going outside without a headscarf, is really interesting.

president saleh is... something

so the president of yemen is either lightly wounded, wounded in a blast to the back of the head (which doesn't sound "light" to me) or killed by a rocket attack, or maybe he's alive. the ruling party says he is "fine and will be on tv within hour."

the whole reason i bother wading through these flurry of early reports is because i convince myself that i will be better informed for my efforts. but instead what always happens is i end up more confused than i would have been if i didn't bother and just waited for it all to be sorted out for tomorrow's headline.

in any case, it looks like something major has happened in yemen. if saleh is dead or too hurt to effectively govern, i really have no idea what will happen next.

UPDATE: saleh delivered an audio address on state television saying he was "well and in good health" after being treated for some "minor injuries." but did you notice that? an audio address on television. so it sounds like he survived but looks too messed up and scary to put on camera.

operation cupcake

british intelligence hacks into al qaeda in the arabian peninsula's online magazine and replaces a recipe for making bombs with a recipe for ellen degeneres' cupcakes. seriously.

stuck in the middle

these two stories reflect the difficult position the new egyptian regime is in with regard to israel. gas shipments to israel and the gaza blockade are both extremely unpopular in egypt, and the new egypt is supposed to be responsive to the will of the people. but the gas deal and gaza blockade is also broadly supported by the u.s., the country that writes the check on egypt's generous aid package.

so how does the new egypt get a government that reflects the wishes of its people and keep the u.s. dollars flowing? i don't think it can. right now egypt is ruled by a military council. most of the u.s. aid goes to the military, so they will do whatever is necessary to keep the money flowing, even if it means stifling the desires of the people. (i bet, for example, the minute someone in congress talks about cutting off aid because the egyptians aren't honoring their gas deals with israel, the technical difficulties will somehow melt away and the gas will flow)

assuming this fall's elections are the real thing, and not some sham to keep the military folks in power, then all bets are off. if the new government really reflects the electorate, then things are going to get even more dicey.  the "cold peace" will get even colder and the gas deal might be a casualty of that new chill. on the other hand, if the government does things to threaten the military's gravy train, there might be a threat of a military coup.

this is just an illustration of how american aid distorts the egyptian political dynamic. it also shows that the egyptian aid package subverts rather than promoted democracy in that country. then again, that package has always been more about protecting israel than doing the egyptians any favors.

(in a related matter, i see my old friend hedy will be on this year's gaza flotilla)

bankrupto-linguistic question

what is the plural of "proof of claim"? by that, i mean, if i have a stack of proof of claim documents, should i call them "proof of claims" or "proofs of claim" (or "proofs of claims")?

i'm a junior league dan savage!

i can tell that summer is here because my sitemeter tells me it's fuck you richard conviser season!

yes, it is that hallowed time when fresh new lawyers get dumped out of law school and register to take the bar bri course to prepare for the bar exam. then they pick up their bar bri material and start to wonder who the hell this richard conviser guy is whose name is plastered all over the bar bri books. they google conviser and end up at this post.

whenever i notice the biannual hit spike (there is also a smaller one in december-january), i get a warm feeling inside. it's no santorum, but i do enjoy my opportunity to pass on the fuck yous to a few of richard conviser's new customers each year.

the sad path ahead

the strangest thing about the debt ceiling standoff is that everyone knows what would happen if democrats held the line and rejected anything other than a "clean" debt ceiling extension: the GOP would cry foul and yell about how the democrats aren't serious about deficits, but (assuming the democrats continued to hold the line) the GOP would eventually cave. they would have to, the party is simply too beholden to american corporate interests to allow the financial calamity of a default to actually happen. they tipped their hand with yesterday's vote, when they "scheduled the vote for after the stock market’s close, and in the preceding days called Wall Street executives to assure them that the vote was just for show."

because everyone knows that the republicans won't let a default happen, then the obvious tactic for democrats is to hold firm. obama can announce that he will veto anything other than a clean bill. hell, if i were him, i would get on the teevee and highlight the fact that house republicans told wall street that their position was not serious.

but that's not what will happen. what will happen is the democrats will give in and agree to some draconian cuts that affects poor people. so some grandmother will freeze to death next winter, or some poor kid won't be able to get his asthma medication months from now because of the democrats cave-in and no one will notice or connect the dots between that happening and the current debate. there's no reason to go that route, the democrats hold the ultimate trump card if they're willing to use it. i'm just convinced they will never use it.