10 May 2009 (midday)

Workout notes Slept late, walked 3 miles, had a large Mother’s Day breakfast; will probably walk 8 more after typing this.

Politics

President Obama at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner; you can see the video here.

Or you can see it here:

Some highlights:

“No president in history has ever named three commerce secretaries this quickly,” Obama said. The president’s two top choices for the position dropped out.

He playfully ribbed his frequent use of a teleprompter and Vice President Joe Biden’s knack for speaking off the cuff. And about the Democratic Party, he said his administration has helped in “bringing in fresh, young faces — like Arlen Specter.” The 79-year-old Pennsylvania senator, a former Republican, switched parties last month.

Obama noted that he and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had been political rivals, but he assured the audience “these days, we could not be closer.”

“In fact the second she got back from Mexico, she pulled me into a hug,” the president said, playing off the threat of a spreading swine flu virus that has targeted Mexico the most.

Obama also turned serious and talked of the financially struggling media industry, praising journalists for holding government officials accountable. “A government without newspapers, a government without a tough and vibrant media of all sorts is not an option for the United States of America,” he said.

He also joked that the Republican Party didn’t qualify for bailout funds and that Rush Limbaugh could not be labeled as a “troubled asset”.

And yes, he roasted Dick Cheney:

It was the hottest ticket in town, a black-tie dinner gathering of Washington’s political and media elite but Dick Cheney couldn’t make it.

The former vice president was busy, President Barack Obama joked, working on his memoir “tentatively titled, How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People.’ ”

But then a comic came on:

Wanday Sykes was a bit testy at times:

Update: Here’s what she said about Rush h/t GOTV:

“You’ve had your fair share of critics. … Rush Limbaugh said this administration fails. … He just wants the country to fail. To me that’s treason. He’s not saying anything different than what Osama Bin Laden is saying. You might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight. … Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that’s what he needs.”

She blistered Senator John McCain:

Sykes: But Mr. President you’ve had your fair share of critics. You know, even Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain gave you grief about the new helicopter that you didn’t order. You know I think Mr. McCain is just a little bitter because he wanted to be in the new helicopter. Just tell Mr. McCain I’m sure if you asked nicely your wife will buy you a helicopter.

On one hand, I thought that, on the Limbaugh joke, she went a bit too far for this occasion. Saying this on a TV show or talk radio would have been fine.

But, I am still eagerly awaiting the howls of outrage from the loony right; these clowns are a laugh a minute!

So what wonderful things are the Republicans up to?

Well, they are busy reading to make 2010 The Year of the Bible!

OK, no joke about this. Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA] has introduced a resolution to encourage Obama to declare that 2010 is The Year Of The Bible. Now, excuse me if I’m wrong about this, but I thought 2010 was going to be the Year of the Tiger.

Is anyone else sick of living in the United States of Jesustan? And, um, why are these 14 Congresscritters wasting their time with silly stuff like this when we’ve occupied 2 foreign countries and our economy is in the tank? Is it because they think the only possible way out of the mess the Republicans created is to pray? I mean, that’s SLIGHTLY less obnoxious than being merely the “party of no” but it still doesn’t get us anywhere.

Cosponsors:
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]

Ok. Maybe the Bible contains a blueprint for Conservative Republican caliber genetic research? Oh yes, take a look at Genesis, Chapter 30:

After Rachel gave birth to Joseph, Jacob said to Laban: “Give me leave to go to my homeland.
26
Let me have my wives, for whom I served you, and my children, too, that I may depart. You know very well the service that I have rendered you.”
27
Laban answered him: “If you will please. . . . “I have learned through divination that it is because of you that God has blessed me.
28
So,” he continued, “state what wages you want from me, and I will pay them.”
29
Jacob replied: “You know what work I did for you and how well your livestock fared under my care;
30
the little you had before I came has grown into very much, since the LORD’S blessings came upon you in my company. Therefore I should now do something for my own household as well.”
31
“What should I pay you?” Laban asked. Jacob answered: “You do not have to pay me anything outright. I will again pasture and tend your flock, if you do this one thing for me:
32
11 go through your whole flock today and remove from it every dark animal among the sheep and every spotted or speckled one among the goats. Only such animals shall be my wages.
33
In the future, whenever you check on these wages of mine, let my honesty testify against me: any animal in my possession that is not a speckled or spotted goat, or a dark sheep, got there by theft!”
34
“Very well,” agreed Laban. “Let it be as you say.”
35
12 That same day Laban removed the streaked and spotted he-goats and all the speckled and spotted she-goats, all those with some white on them, as well as the fully dark-colored sheep; these he left. . . in charge of his sons.
36
Then he put a three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to pasture the rest of Laban’s flock.
37
Jacob, however, got some fresh shoots of poplar, almond and plane trees, and he made white stripes in them by peeling off the bark down to the white core of the shoots.
38
The rods that he had thus peeled he then set upright in the watering troughs, so that they would be in front of the animals that drank from the troughs. When the animals were in heat as they came to drink,
39
13 the goats mated by the rods, and so they brought forth streaked, speckled and spotted kids.
40
The sheep, on the other hand, Jacob kept apart, and he set these animals to face the streaked or fully dark-colored animals of Laban. Thus he produced special flocks of his own, which he did not put with Laban’s flock.
41
Moreover, whenever the hardier animals were in heat, Jacob would set the rods in the troughs in full view of these animals, so that they mated by the rods;
42
but with the weaker animals he would not put the rods there. So the feeble animals would go to Laban, but the sturdy ones to Jacob.
43
Thus the man grew increasingly prosperous, and he came to own not only large flocks but also male and female servants and camels and asses.

Ok, who takes such nonsense seriously? Oh that’s right: Conservative Republicans!!!!

Creationism, School, Teacher’s Statements
Many of my friends are outraged over the fact that a Federal Court found that a southern California public school teacher violated church/state separation law when he declared that creationism was “superstitious nonsense” (which of course, it is).

But, as I had said previously, there is more going on there (on legal grounds) than may be obvious to those of us who aren’t trained in law. The teacher in question had made many similar statements and only one of them was afoul of the law:

However, the Judge reviewed a number of the teachers’ statements, all of which were critical of creationism and religion, and held that the rest of his statements were permissible. For example:

Aristotle was a physicist. He said, ‘no movement without movers.’ And he argued that, you know there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense. I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all of this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.

[T]he other possibility is it’s always been here. Those are the two possibilities: it [the universe] was created out of nothing or it’s always been here. Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic. [Inaudible] the spaghetti monster behind the moon. I mean, all I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.

Therefore, no creation, unless you invoke magic. Science doesn’t invoke magic. If we can’t explain something, we do not uphold that position. It’s not, ooh, then magic. That’s not the way we work.

Contrast that with creationists. They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense. (Op. at 27)

The judge held that the primary effect of these statements was to illustrate a contrast between scientific reasoning and religious faith. Although a statement might be offensive to one religious set of beliefs, that does not make it unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Nomination

It is certainly true that the Republicans in the Senate gave far more support to President Clinton’s nominees than the Democrats gave Bush nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito (Harriet Miers was taken down by Republicans and not by Democrats)

But perhaps there is a reason for that:

When President Clinton made his two judicial nominations to the Supreme Court, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following is an excerpt from Hatch’s autobiography:

[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

In fairness, here is the Right Wing’s “yes but” “rebuttal” (if you can call it that).

For more on how the vote might go (depending on the nominee, of course), see Nate Silver’s blog:

My quick take on the Souter replacement is that, with 59 Democratic senators and high popularity, Obama could nominate Pee Wee Herman to the Supreme Court and get him confirmed. But I’m no expert on this. The experts are my colleagues down the hall, John Kastellec, Jeff Lax, and Justin Phillips, who wrote this article on public opinion and senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. They find:

Greater public support strongly increases the probability that a senator will vote to approve a nominee, even after controlling for standard predictors of roll call voting. We also find that the impact of opinion varies with context: it has a greater effect on opposition party senators, on ideologically opposed senators, and for generally weak nominees.

More discussion, and some pretty graphs, below.

If you like graphs and statistics, surf to the link.