GM and Discriminatory Pricing (not price discrimination)

The biggest thing to hit the airwaves this summer has been every car manufacturer under the sun offering bare bottom employee discount pricing to everyone. But it turns out that when GM says, "Employee discount for everyone. You pay what we pay," they may be attempting to stress everyone as much as discount.

The ThirdWay Ad blog points out that the, "the spot announcing this
discount is weighted towards non-white male speakers. Of the 7 spokespeople in
the spot (all employees), only two are white men. There are two more men - one
Hispanic and one Black and three women, one white, one Asian and one Black." Now I am not proposing that this is something unusual, almost every non-gun company tries very hard to seem diverse and multicultural. The interesting thing is that this may be a tactic to combat discriminatory pricing.

Anyone who has ever met the unique race of salespeople knows how they can treat certain groups, namely women and minorities. Car dealers are no different; on average they tend to sell identical cars at higher prices to women and minorities as opposed to white men. If you disagree with this assertion, discussions of the various quantitative studies can be found in Blink and Pervasive Prejudice.

For a more intuitive explanation, salesmen work on commission and tend to belong to a certain socioeconomic group with certain preconceived notions. Also, women tend to be more reluctant to negotiate in the same way that men are (if you disagree, that is fine, just don't make a Larry Summers out of me). Regardless of the reasons, on average women and minorities pay more.

ThirdWay blog contends that this may be the reason that sales are booming so much, women and minorities are being encouraged to buy cars at a significantly lower price than they were paying before (when you take into account the higher price they were paying for before).

Obviously we will have to wait and see if this is really the reason, but I am willing to contend that offering the same price for everyone is huge incentive to, well, everyone. Dealing with car dealers can be a supreme pain in the ass and probably can end up discouraging buyers at the margin. The combo of lower prices and no price finagling must also encourage interested buyers on the margin to take the plunge and get that new car.

Whether discrimination or the benefit of less hassle is the reason for GM and other manufacturers offering the employee discount, an important question is why do car manufacturers use the pricing scheme they have now. By allowing whites and men to pay less for a car, they are forgoing profit, and forcing those who have less money to pay more. GM and others may be better off by attempting to get those who have the money to buy the more expensive car at flat rates. That way they could also employ fewer salespeople and require less from their salespeople. It’s an odd economic model that may be costing car companies money.

Interestingly, Saturn has begun to use a flat pricing scheme with salespeople that do not work solely on commision. Maybe we are witnessing a revolution of car sales in progress, maybe not. I know I would be OK with the death of the slimy car salesman.

-Mr. Alec

Random Points

First, this article caught my eye in relation to my post on illegal immigration. Although the study seems to acknowledge that there may have been imperfections I think this confirms what most objective people figured to be true: That immigrants are no more of a drain than ordinary citizens that also pay taxes.

Oddly enough, if immigrants get less health care than natural born citizens, then we ought to encourage more health care. The cost of immigrants not seeking treatment for easily curable diseases that are highly contagious is much greater than the cost of a little more health care. Something tells me Bill O'Reilly will not be talking about this tomorrow.

[Edit: I was very wrong about this, I misread it, I apologize.]

Second, I had a funny discussion with my dad about the ends justifying the means. Then we stumbled upon the inverse of that, that the means justify the ends. After thinking, we decided that the perfect example of a group that believes the means justify the ends would be the organizers of Live8. They do not really care what the actual effect of their contribution is. In fact, LiveAid ended up giving money to dictatorships, but it was one hell of a set of concerts.

[I do, however, stand by my mocking of Live8. Such fools.]

-Mr. Alec

Democrats and Roberts

The Daily Show was as brilliant as ever in encapsulating the Democratic response to Judge Roberts nomination:

Ed Helms: Liberals are outraged by Bush's choice. They have been for weeks.

Jon Stewart: Ed they just found out about Roberts last night.

Ed Helms: That's not the point. The left wishes the president picked someone they wanted, not someone he wanted. I mean who gave him the authority; its abuse of power.

Jon Stewart: I think it's in the constitution.

Ed Helms: What the Democrats are saying is they wish they had won the last election.

While the Democrats are stressing the importance to wait and see, and drumming up the importance of an already dismissed memo. They seem to be doing everything in a baseless yet passionate manner, like Bush just nominated a terrible person, but we don't know why he is terrible yet. John Kerry sent out this email to those on his email list:

This much is clear already. Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor.

Last night we learned that President Bush wants to replace a woman who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade with a man who argued against Roe v. Wade, and that sends a clear signal that this White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America.

There are big questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court. The Senate must learn whether he has a clear, consistent commitment to upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights, the right to privacy, and Roe v. Wade. These issues are in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record.

We need to ask the tough questions to determine whether John Roberts is the nominee who will give America a Court that is fair, independent, ethical and committed to Constitutional freedoms rather than an ideological agenda, and I promise you I will do everything in my power to assure that no question is sidestepped.

Throughout every step of the confirmation process, I will keep you informed about the questions that need to be asked, the answers we need to demand, and the principles we need to defend. It's impossible to overstate the importance of this moment.

As the U.S. Senate discharges one of its most important responsibilities, I will be active and vigilant. I hope you will do the same, beginning right now. Start by sharing a few words about your personal feelings on the importance of this Supreme Court nomination.

You can submit your comments or questions here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/share/

Thank you,

John Kerry

P.S. In the days ahead, we'll be featuring on our johnkerry.com website a cross-section of the comments submitted and contacting you with important information and action requests as events demand. Sign up here if you want to get the latest information. Recruit your friends and neighbors, too.

Chuck Schumer came out with a similar statement. Kerry's message just reeks of bitterness. He seems to be itching for a fight, on a front where Democrats are going to gain no traction, and on issues that the country does not want fight over anymore. But so much money has been collected and so many liberals are angry in general, that a fight may be created. But my bet is that the Democrats will end up just looking silly (especially because Roberts will probably end up talking the pants off of Democrats and Republicans alike in his confirmation hearing, i.e. he is charismatic).

And this all sums up the brilliance of Bush selecting Roberts. Although Bush has been brazen and cavalier when it comes to almost every single issue during his presidency (think Iraq, Social Security, Tax Cuts, Filibuster and the Federal Court of Appeals nominees, Patriot Act, etc), he was not in selecting Roberts. Bush could have selected Michael Luttig (aka Scalia Jr.), stuck to his tendency to divide and conquer, and further radicalized Democrats and centrists (but pleased only Evangelicals and Karl Rove). But he didn't. He selected a really bright and likable guy. He selected a guy that adequately, but not outrageously, represents the ideals of the voters who elected him (and hey, Ann Coulter thinking he is not conservative enough seems like an endorsement to the rest of the country). Democrats need to work on getting that majority, not entrenching their already entrenched base (David Brooks touches on this).

The Democrat that wants to be the next President of the United States should get up, quote John Kennedy, then describe how although he may not agree with all of Roberts stances, the country does not need a bitter confirmation process. Then this fantasy Democrat would describe things we do need, like an honest discussion of Social Security's solvency, the real financial implications of Bush's prescription drug care plan, a fair appraisal of Iraq, a renewed focus on Afghanistan, and the Muslim world as a whole. I can only dream though...Fareed Zakaria for President.

-Mr. Alec

PS Isn't this Supreme Court stuff is fun?!

Bonus Supreme Court Nom Thoughts and Links

The New York Times ended up highlighting concerns on Roberts' record in dealing with federal environmental legislation in its lead editorial.

One of the most important areas for the Senate to explore is Judge Roberts's views on federalism - the issue of how much power the federal government should have. The far right is on a drive to resurrect ancient, and discredited, states' rights theories. If extremists take control of the Supreme Court, we will end up with an America in which the federal government is powerless to protect against air pollution, unsafe working conditions and child labor. There are reasons to be concerned about Judge Roberts on this score. He dissented in an Endangered Species Act case in a way that suggested he might hold an array of environmental laws, and other important federal protections, to be unconstitutional.

The editorial continues by questioning Roberts' record on Roe v. Wade. Roberts apparently signed a Supreme Court brief on the 1991 case Rust v. Sullivan that stated, "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Seeing as how Roberts' is Bush's nominee, this should come as no surprise (for an excellent discussion on what Roberts' involvement with this brief actually means, check this out).

But the far more important significant quotation is this, made during his 2003 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals nomination hearing, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." This, of course, is interesting, given that Alberto Gonzales seemed to hold a similar line of reasoning in his 2000 majority opinion for the Texas Supreme Court. Also, this seemed to be the tangible evidence of many conservative groups distaste for Gonzales. It seems that similar views from Roberts were not nearly as bad. But this is the quote Democrats should be looking at, not an excerpt from some 14 year old brief. (EDIT: Everyone should read Mihai's comment, because he is correct, I infered far too much faith from Roberts comments, because once he is on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court's precedence is not as important. Sorry and thanks Mihai.)

At any rate, some interesting closing opinions of Roberts, the man, come from friends and associates. Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein gives his opinion of Roberts as such:

Before shutting down the blog for the night, I thought I'd give my sense of the answer to the question of what I think John Roberts will be like as a Supreme Court Justice. The answer is that he will be like William Rehnquist, his former boss.

Judge Roberts, like the Chief, is an institutionalist - he has worked for essentially his entire professional career before the Supreme Court.

I also have the sense that they have a similar ideology. For example, I get the sense that he (like the Chief) simultaneously believes in strong Executive Powers (see the D.C. Circuit's recent Hamdan decision, which he joined) but also limited federal powers (see his dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in the Rancho Viejo case).

One difference may be that Judge Roberts's opinions show him to be more of a judicial craftsman than the Chief, who tends to write as concisely and directy as possible. But in analyzing cases, the two are similar, as Judge Roberts explained in his hearings that it may be appropriate to rely on different sources of meaning -- e.g., text and history -- depending on the precise context.

Much more to come, obviously.

And everyone should continue to check out what Goldstein has to say. But contrary to Goldstein, Georgetown Law Professor Richard Lazarus states:

Judge Roberts's mode and mentor, he said, was not Chief Justice Rehnquist, but rather the appeals court judge for whom he clerked, Henry J. Friendly, who served on the appeals court based in New York until his death in 1986.

"They were very much alike," Professor Lazarus said. "He was hired by Judge Friendly without an interview because John's credentials were like his. They won the same history prize at Harvard and each had the same position on the law review there."

Professor Lazarus said that as an advocate before the court, Judge Roberts had a precise practice regimen. He would divide up his argument into about eight sections and first memorize them and then practice reciting them in random order to account for the justices' questions.

"He looks relaxed and spontaneous," he said. "But it's all based on an extraordinary amount of work and preparation."

Everyone ought to be impressed by someone that intense about his passion. I am sure Roberts is on top of the world tonight, and it seems well earned. Let the fun begin.

-Mr. Alec

Justice Roberts

I am sure you all know that Judge John Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court. It certainly seems to be a much better nomination than Owens or Clement, one David Brooks and Mark Shields were happy about on PBS.

But one interesting point is that while abortion rights, civil rights, and all that tasty stuff are certainly not up in the air with O'Connor's replacement, or even Rehnquist's eventual replacement, environmental legislation may very well end up getting the boot. The Atlantic did a very interesting piece on this awhile back.

Consider the Constitution's commerce clause, which empowers the national legislature to regulate "commerce … among the several states." Since the New Deal the commerce clause has been construed very broadly, becoming the constitutional backbone of much important civil-rights legislation and of all the major environmental laws. Yet since 1995 the Court has issued a series of decisions that emphasize the limits of the commerce power, requiring that laws enacted under it deal in some sense with—well, interstate commerce. I have considerable sympathy for this line of argument, but its potential dangers to the environment are hard to overstate. For while the environment itself is intrinsically interstate, not all environmental-protection measures obviously constitute regulations of commerce "among the several states"—or even regulations of commerce at all. Can the government, under the Endangered Species Act, protect—as one conservative judge poetically put it—"a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California"? Can it, under the Clean Water Act, protect isolated seasonal pools (which are not interstate) used by migratory birds (which are)?

These questions are not law-school hypotheticals. The constitutionality of protecting single-state endangered species from activity that may or may not be commercial in nature has been roiling the lower courts, splitting the most energetic conservatives from more-cautious ones. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld protection of the hapless toad, as the Fifth Circuit did of "six species of subterranean invertebrates found only within two counties in Texas." (When a majority of the Fifth Circuit refused to rehear the latter case, a dissenting judge wrote, "For the sake of a species of 1/8-inch-long cave bugs, which lack any known value in commerce, much less interstate commerce, the panel [has] crafted a constitutionally limitless theory of federal protection. Their opinion lends new meaning to the term reductio ad absurdum.") The Fourth Circuit, over a ferocious dissent, upheld protections for red wolves in North Carolina. But in 2001 the Supreme Court dodged the constitutional question posed by migratory birds by finding nonconstitutional grounds to invalidate an important federal regulation that protected seasonal pools in Illinois. So where, exactly, it is headed on this issue remains murky.

With that in mind, take a look at what Slate told us about Robert's past decisions on environmental legislation:

Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

So it seems if anything should be debated prior to his nomination, the environment ought to be given the most attention. It probably won't, nor do I think it neccesarily should, but keep it in mind.

-Mr. Alec

Fareed Zakaria and Terrorism

Fareed Zakaria had a great column last week about the London bombings, Iraq, the Muslim world, and terrorism in general. Some of the highlights include his analysis of the reaction to terrorism from the Muslim world:

Now things are changing. The day before the London bombs, a conference of 180 top Muslim sheiks and imams, brought together under the auspices of Jordan's King Abdullah, issued a statement forbidding that any Muslim be declared takfir‹an apostate. This is a frontal attack on Al Qaeda's theological methods. Declaring someone takfir—and thus sanctioning his or her death—is a favorite tactic of bin Laden and his ally in Iraq, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. The conference's statement was endorsed by 10 fatwas from such big conservative scholars as Tantawi; Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani; Egypt's mufti, Ali Jumaa, and the influential Al-Jazeera TV-sheik, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Signed by adherents of all schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), it also allows only qualified Muslim scholars to issue edicts. The Islamic Conference's statement, the first of its kind, is a rare show of unity among the religious establishment against terrorists and their scholarly allies.

This is interesting because so often the right has cast the Muslim establishment in much of the Middle East as tacitly accepting terrorism. Bill O'Reilly calls Al Jazeera a "terrorist network." Of course Zakaria's observation contradicts much of what we thought was the case in the Middle East. As much as Bill O'Reilly and others have been ripping into Al Jazeera for every time that it shows an Al Qaeda tape (which FOXNews then airs), they ought to be congratulating Al Jazeera for this.

At any rate, the most interesting aspect of Zakaria's column comes at the end:

The broader shift that needs to take place, however, is a better definition of victory. America's political leaders continue to give their citizens the impression that victory means ensuring that there will be no other attack on American soil—as long as we go on the offense abroad, get perfect intelligence, buy fancy new technologies at home, screen visas and lock some people up. But all these tough tactics and all the intelligence in the world will not change the fact that in today's open societies, terrorism is easy to carry out. The British authorities, perhaps the world's best at combating terror, admit they had no warning about last week's attack. The American response to the London bombs has been a perfect example of U.S. grandstanding. We immediately raised the alert level, scaring Americans, with no specific information about terror attacks in America. Why? Because were something to happen here, politicians and bureaucrats want to be able to say, "Don't blame us, we told you."

Real victory is not about preventing all attacks everywhere. No one can guarantee that. It's really about preventing the worst kinds of attacks, and responding well to others. And on this score, America remains woefully unprepared. "The British attacks failed because Britain has excellent response systems and its people are well prepared on how to respond. America has neither advantage today," says Stephen Flynn, a homeland-security expert and author of "America the Vulnerable: How Our Government Is Failing to Protect Us From Terrorism." "We need good education and training for transit workers and citizens, good communication mechanisms among government agencies and the people, and most important, a good public-health infrastructure." We have little of this today. In the years after 9/11 we have wasted much time, effort and money on other priorities rather than engaging in the massive investment in the systems of response that we need. Our leaders remain unwilling to speak honestly about the world we live in and to help people develop the mentality of response that is essential to prevailing.

The bombs were meant to show that the terrorists were strong and we were weak. In fact they have shown the opposite. But to realize victory fully, we must know what victory means.

This highlights what seems to be the chief difference between American and British response. In the US we had politicians assuring us of victory and media scaring the shit out of all of us. Then politicians would get into the business of using scare tactics. We had John Ashcroft announcing:

Now, a radioactive "dirty bomb" involves exploding a conventional bomb that not only kills victims in the immediate vicinity but also spreads radioactive material that is highly toxic to humans and can cause mass death and injury.

From information available to the United States government, we know that Abdullah Al Muhajir is an Al Qaeda operative and was exploring a plan to build and explode a radioactive "dirty bomb."

Let me be clear: We know from multiple independent and corroborating sources that Abdullah Al Muhajir was closely associated with al Qaeda and that as an al Qaeda operative he was involved in planning future terrorist attacks on innocent American civilians in the United States.

Much of what Ashcroft said here ended up being ridiculous. Although "dirty bombs" are dangerous, all it is, is a pipe bomb, that will slightly raise someone's chances of getting cancer (something that will happen to almost everybody anyways). Those who would get the highest brunt of the radioactive material would just die from the pipe bomb, making a "dirty bomb" not much worse than an ordinary pipe bomb and extended sun exposure.

This type of act was followed up by Bush making comments like this, "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win," to the American Legion. This of course was preceded by Bush making entirely correct comments about the War on Terror, namely that, "I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

The issue here is one where politicians (not just Republicans, Democrats are guilty for giving Bush grief for his comments on terrorism) are attempting to scare people into action against terrorism, with the promise that, in the end, it will go back to 2000. Contrast this with the British sentiment, namely that when authorities warn people of more attacks, it does not seem political, it seems honest, that the Brits don't have delusions of the world going back to 2000 (though they dealt with the IRA's terrorism years before 2000).

We, as a country, ought to take a cue from the British on this.

-Mr. Alec

Supreme Court Nom

This is a long overdue post, first I want to briefly discuss some awesome sources on this. By far the coolest (and possibly most accurate) source for nomination prognostication is TradeSports.com (Click Legal, then Supreme Court). Trade Sports is a futures market, where people actually put their money where their mouth is. Historically such futures markets have been very accurate in predicting the results of presidential elections and even papal conclaves. Right now Emilio Garza and Priscilla Owens are the leaders, although I can only speculate on the accuracy of markets in predicting a lame duck president's personal choice for the Supreme Court.

But lots of bad news this week for Alberto Gonzales, every liberals pick for the court when the religious right went ape shit at the thought of him getting Bush's nod. Many social conservatives do not like him for his lack of judicial activism in the area of abortion rights. In fact many conservative grumblings result from a Texas Supreme Court decision in which Mr. Gonzales wrote this for the majority:

Our role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best to discern what the Legislature actually intended. ... Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves might have made different policy decisions. ...

The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. ... But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. ... Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism. As a judge, I hold the right of parents to protect and guide the education, safety, health and development of their children as one of the most important rights in our society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as here, the Legislature has elected not to do so.

Oddly enough, the dissenting opinion was joined by none other than Priscilla Owens, the long filibustered Texas Supreme Court judge, who was let through by the Gang of 14 and now rules from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But this opinion has given birth to the saying, "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter," among many worried about another Republican bungling a nomination (remember Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower who called Warren's nomination the, "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made").

But Gonzales' bad news was not limited to conservatives calling him not conservative enough. Some hints at the decision were dropped by Laura Bush, who said, "I would really like him to name another woman..." to NBC's Today show. Now I do not bring this up because I think Bush follows his wife's every whim. I think it is significant because a comment like that is not dropped about something as controversial as this at the First Lady's whim. This seems like a test balloon from the White House, and may well explain why Priscilla Owens' stock is so high. But simultaneously the First Lady's comment may signal a distancing from Bush's perceived closeness with Gonzales. This is of course all speculation, but that is all we have right now.

Most do agree that Bush is likely to select a more Scalia/Thomas-like judge as his first pick, and if given a shot at a second pick, will go moderate (most likely Gonzales). This is why today's news from Rehnquist (that he will, "continue to perform [his] duties as chief justice as long as [his] health permits") must have Gonzales reeling. Also, it all but ensures that Rove will advise Bush not to select Gonzales. If the social conservatives, who have been waiting since Goldwater to pack the court, do not get their man in when a second opportunity is not guaranteed, then Bush can kiss the midterm elections goodbye.

But Rehnquist's decision will make Bush's next move more difficult. The White House was probably aching to get Rehnquist's retirement so that they could choose two judges, a do a balancing act, whereby Bush would select one conservative justice, and a second more moderate. This scenario allowed for maximum placation and would have put Democrats at a significant disadvantage. Rehnquist's decision is great for Democrats though, it allows them to concentrate their efforts on just one nominee, and the more conservative of Bush's likely nominees (as opposed to the second slot that may open for Bush).

* * *

But in coming at this from a different angle, David Brooks had an excellent article today (surprise, surprise). Brooks says:

Yet presidents often make their Supreme Court picks on the most trivial bases: because so-and-so is a loyalist or a friend, because so-and-so has some politically convenient trait or ties to some temporarily attractive constituency. By thinking too politically, presidents end up reducing their own influence on history.

Mr. President, don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Ideas drive history, so you want to pick the person with the biggest brain.

I think Brooks makes the all important point in the middle of all of this speculation and jockeying, that although selecting a Hispanic or female may pay a small dividend in 2008, the Supreme Court is much more than any majority in the House or Senate. Also Brooks' ideal selection, Michael McConnell looks intriguing, though may not lay well with Bush's base (but that may have been Brooks' point).

Hopefully this makes sense of some of the action. Last I want to give two more excellent sources of information. This roundup of possible nominee's by Slate has summed up a lot of the candidates for me (I linked it already above, but deserves more than a link in passing). The second great source is a blog that is an outshoot of the Supreme Court of the United States Blog (SCOTUSblog). It is just for the nomination battle, and is posted on by lawyers who only litigate at the Supreme Court level, so they seem to know what they are talking about.

-Mr. Alec

New Contributer

We have a new contributer to the Sex Palais, Kevin, or T-Bone as he is known to his parole officer, will now post occasionally. If last month taught me anything it is that I can't hold down the Sex Palais by myself.

-Mr. Alec

Congressional Redistricting

Something I have often championed as a cure for the stagnancy of the House of Representatives is independent Congressional redistricting instead of the political approach used in almost every state. Not many disagree that Gerrymandering is bad, it has become so bad with the advent of advanced software that makes optimizing populations for incumbents so easy, that David Broder likened our House to Britain's House of Lords.

But Steven Hill writes an interesting article that is critical of non-political redistricting as a cure-all:

For instance, in Arizona, where an independent panel delineates districts, all eight Congressional incumbents won re-election last year with an average margin of victory of 34 percent. In the State Senate, none of the 30 seats were competitive; in fact, more than half of the seats were uncontested by one of the two major parties (even though Arizona has public financing of elections, which should encourage more candidates). Other states that use independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions of one kind or another, like Iowa, New Jersey and Washington, also had mostly noncompetitive Congressional elections in 2004.

The problem is not who draws the legislative lines -- it's where people live. Take a look at a map of California that shows which areas voted for John Kerry and which voted for President Bush. It looks the same as the map for Al Gore and Mr. Bush four years earlier. It will look much the same for the Republican and Democratic candidates in 2008.

As they have in many states, regional partisan leanings in California have become entrenched over the past 20 years, with the heavily populated coastal areas and cities dominated by Democrats and the more sparsely populated interior dominated by Republicans. It's a statewide version of the national political map.

Hill continues, pointing out that truly competitive districts would violate the Voting Rights Act that seeks to ensure minority representation in Congress.

But while Hill is effective in criticizing the status-quo, his solution is not the answer:

We can't change where people choose to live, but we can begin using some type of proportional representation system. For example, California could use a system like that in Peoria, Ill., for municipal elections. Instead of electing 40 state senators from 40 districts, voters in 10 districts could elect four senators each. Any candidate who won at least a quarter of the vote would earn a seat. These districts would be far more likely to be bipartisan, even electing some urban Republicans and rural Democrats.

Taking away the winner takes all system that ensures our two party system is not one that we should take lightly, or attempt to convince people of in a paragraph. Somehow Britain which has a winner take all system, and thus has a three party system, is able to keep seats for Parliament competitive, though suburban dominance in the US might make us uniquely different than the British. Although I have no answers to the problem at hand, I ought to stand corrected on my championing of Independent redistricting commissions.

-Mr. Alec

Free-Trade Democrats

I am about half-done with a lengthy post on aid, Africa, and farming subsides (fucking French), but in the mean time I have to call attention to a rather disturbing trend among Democrats. Increasingly Democrats have become increasingly protectionist. CAFTA passed with only 10 yes votes by Democrats. Various justifications range from labor standards to prescription drug policy. Both are just ridiculous. Central American countries can speak for themselves, and Central American citizens and governments know full well that increased trade with the US means billions. In the long run, I am sure that will be worth poor pharmacutical policy that can always be changed.

But this underscores the shift away from free-trade that has been seen since John Edwards started successfully playing on protectionist tendencies that carried into the Presidential Election. Bill Clinton was smart on this issue, Hillary in a break from her husband voted no. Joe Biden and John Kerry also voted no, leaving the possibility of a free-trade ticket in 2008 by Democrats at nearly 0%, unless we see a surprise Governor (which would be unlikely if Hillary really runs).

This is all unfortunate because the overwhelming amount of evidence shows free-trade is good for everyone involved. Globalization is not the evil term Democrats seem to think it is. It may play well with voters for now, but I think in the long run protectionism is just not tenable. It has the full weight of history against it. Plus anything the sugar lobby opposes has to be great for the country!

-Mr. Alec

Blog Revisited

I have been away for the past couple of weeks. I attempted to post something at the Athens airport, but it would not let me. But over my couple of weeks I have reflected on this blog and decided that I am going to rework it.

So here is what will change. I am still going to occasionally write lengthy pieces that go against the grain, but more frequently I am going to write brief pieces that link news articles that highlight what I feel are attention worthy. Lets face it, there are billions of much smarter people than me, and I'll try to highlight them.

-Mr. Alec