...about blacks and hispanics, too? It's not happening. And they keep shooting themselves in the foot. Recently, Katrina for blacks and the whole immigration circus for hispanics guarantees both remain in our column for quite awhile, just like the cozying up to the most extreme religious Christians does for Jews.
...the exact same on that is posed about Affirmative Action in general. That is, do you include/hire somebody/whatever less qualified (by whatever test is used) because they are a member of a descriminated ethnic group or gender, or not? Of course, then there are accusations one is merely picking people like themselves, or the test is otherwise biased against minorities, and then there are counter accusations that you are descriminating against whites by doing so.
Now, one of the things about the Internet is that one does not neccessarily know the races/genders of those involved-however, that being said, I can not think of a prominent black blogger. Which should not be terribly surprising. People who are heavily into the internet tend to be white males-it's just how things work. Plus, blacks (I hate the cumbersome "African American" term-it's too long, for one thing) only make up 12.8% of the population. So, in a small group of people that probably leans white already, the fact there wasn't a black in attendance is not terribly surprising, unless one picked one via quotas-Quick, we need a black face!
I dunno if Kos was at the event in question, but he would be considered Hispanic, I guess.
Now, in regard to gender, I also think that many women are turned off by the somewhat "macho" language of men who are speaking in informal scenerios such as blogging (and related issues, like the whole "pie" thing, which strike this white male as silly, but many women think otherwise). Some of the other comments here by women indicate as much. This causes them to blog in thier own seperate world or quit entirely.
One part prevents the state from taking property via eminent domain for non-governmental purposes. Most people support this.
The other part is the controversial one. It requires the state to pay compensation for any new law that causes "substantial economic losses", with the main exception of ones that "protect public health and safety".
I don't have a problem with this, provided "health and safety" is interpreted very widely in the courts. The intent here seems to be an anti-zoning law. The authors give three examples, all of which are real property related (land), and two of which are zoning related (a rezoning that allows fewer houses to be built on a property, and a rezoning that shrinks the maximum height of a building). The third example would be closing the only public road to a property.
As a Libertarian Democrat, I am anti-zoning in almost every case. I believe restrictive zoning in existing built up areas is one of the main causes of excess sprawl.
I am anti-regulation by the government as well, except to protect health and safety. Since there is a specific exemption for just that thing, I have no problem with this proposition.
...we can't control all Democrats. All the other side needs to do to defuse this is to point out a Democratic congresswoman hitting a cop or a Democratic congressman with ninety grand in thier freezer. Doesn't matter if there are many more corrupt Republicans than Democrats-the public gets the message "They are all crooks", and turnout drops. And when turnout drops, Republicans win. Democrats need high turnout to win.
I think corruption should mainly be mentioned only if one is running against one of the particular corrupt Republicans. Other than that, it's not really a winning issue, I don't think.
...is that it attempts to remove the "name recognition" factor, which fucks up all early polls. I'm sure that, even if people could figure out who Hillary and Edwards were, most couldn't figure out the rest, which is useful. It's also interesting that Hillary scored very low even though in a "name recognition" standard poll, she would score very high-so I'm thinking a lot of people DIDN'T figure out who she was.
Personally, I think we can throw out every canidate that didn't score double digits in this poll. I'm glad that Feingold made this cut. Warner is looking very good. I'm scared about "World War III" swiftboating against Clark, though, despite his high numbers here.
And, yes, K is Gavel. "Small" refers to population size, although that's poorly worded, considering that physically, Alaska is rather "Large".
Gerrymandering works well assuming status quo, but if there's a big shift towards the other way, it actually hurts the party that the gerrymander is intended to favor, because gerrymandering frequently takes, say, a really safe district and a competitive one, and makes two kinda safe seats. But if the shift is bigger than the "kinda safeness", they lose both seats, where they would have only lost one before. Gerrymandering makes small shifts harder and big shifts easier. And it looks like there's going to be a big shift our way this time.
...explaining this to many Americans is too complicated. A lot of Americans, especially immediately after 9/11, want blood, for understandable, if somewhat knee-jerk and immoral, reasons. The fact that the enemy is non-white and non-Christian means that these feelings are that much harder to temper down.
Part of why Iraq was popular was because large segments of the American public didn't really care if the Arab Muslims we are killing are actually guilty of anything, as long as we are killing some Arab Muslims, that's A-OK to them.
This is why Democrats are perceived as "weak"-because the Republicans outwarmonger us every time. The only solution to this is to outwarmonger the Republicans, which won't work and is wrong to boot.
I feel we need to stand fast and take the hit in opinion polls. As long as much of rural and suburban America sees, at least on a subconscious level, everybody that is not like them (aka everybody that is non-White and non-Christian) as the enemy, there's no way to win them over on this issue. Urban Americans deal with so many different types of people on a daily basis that such feelings are much restrained.
It is not a coincidence that the blue states are dominated (population wise) by big cities and older suburbs, and the red states are dominated by newer suburbs, exurban areas, and truely rural areas.
Yes, I am calling the red states uncultured hicks-because they are. It's the nature of rural areas throughout the planet that people who live there are much less in tune with the greater world. If you ask 100 rural dwellers how often they have traveled abroad, how many non-White, non-Christian people they know, and compare that with 100 urban dwellers, the difference will be quite apparent. Therefore, these types are much more supportive of emotional fearmongering the Republicans provide in spades, while logic rules the day in Democratic areas.