"The Profiler"

From today's Projo blog:

ACLU sues state police for alleged racial profiling
PROVIDENCE --
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court today challenging what it calls the illegal detention of a van of Guatemalans on Interstate 95 in July.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 11 of the 14 immigrants, argues that "the actions by the state police violated the state's Racial Profiling Prevention Act, as well as the driver and passengers' constitutional rights to be free from discrimination and from unreasonable searches and seizures," according to an announcement released this morning by the ACLU.
The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated the constitutional rights of the driver and passengers, and an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.
Today's lawsuit stems from a July 11 traffic stop on Route 95 southbound in Richmond. State trooper Thomas Chabot said he stopped the van, because the driver failed to signal a lane change. When the driver and 13 occupants could not produce immigration documents, Chabot called federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities.
The 14, who now face deportation, allege that Chabot threatened to shoot or kill them if they tried to escape the van on its way to ICE headquarters in Providence.
Chabot was cleared of wrongdoing in September after an internal state police investigation, which found that the trooper "acted professionally and appropriately in this traffic stop," including his seeking involvement by federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.
The head of Rhode Island's ACLU said there's no doubt that the incident was a result of racial profiling. “Since the license and registration papers of the van’s driver were valid and there was never any suggestion of criminal activity, the questioning and detention of the passengers was clearly based on one element: their ethnic appearance," ACLU executive director Steven Brown said. "This is the essence of racial profiling."


Sassette:
But they were here illegally, right? Are people who are not in this country legally really afforded the same protections under the law as those who are? What is irksome about this article is that the short version that is on the "breaking news" section of projo does not mention that the people are now facing deportation - you have to click the link to continue the article in another window to find that out. Also, if all 14 are facing deportation, that must mean that the license and registration paperwork that were "in order" must have been fakes, right? If the driver and the 13 passengers could not produce immigration documents, then the driver must have actually been in possession of fake license and registration paperwork.
So, what is the deal? What did the police do wrong?

Xen:
This is a ludicrous lawsuit as far as I can tell.
How is it racial profiling?

Was there a traffic violation?
How can an illegal immigrant have a valid license? Is an out-of-the-US license valid here? If not, then you are right - it must have been a fake.
If I am in the country illegally, it doesn't matter WHAT I am detained for initially - I am here illegally.
If a bank robber is stopped for speeding and he's got that big canvass bag next to him with the "$" on it and a black robbers mask across his eyes, is it profiling? Bull.

The ACLU is all over this police profiling thing and it's out of control as far as I can see.

Sassette:
The worst part is that no one in the article is disputing, apparently, that the traffic offense occurred. I am very interested to see if the law in RI allows the use of traffic violations as a pretext for police to stop a vehicle. I believe they do, and if so it doesn't matter - the stop was legal. In theory you could offer up the argument that any member of a minority is always profiled any time they are stopped. It is ludicrous.

I honestly am curious if people who have entered this country illegally are entitled to the same protections as legal citizens. Do you know?

This whole thing seems to be half *ssed reported. No mention has been made as to why they are in RI; are they living in the state, or perhaps in CT? Do they have relatives also here illegally?

Ward? Have You Seen The Beaver Tonight?

Providence Journal:
Mollis' stepson fired two shots at a gold Lexus
"The North Providence today said Gian Piscione, the stepson of (newly installed) Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis, fired two shots at a 2001 gold Lexus in front of 17 Third St., North Providence, last night. No one was hit, the police said.
Piscione, 19, was arraigned this morning in Sixth District Court on six counts, including two counts of assault with the intent to commit murder, unlawfully possessing a loaded shotgun while driving, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
The police said Piscione had driven over to the area in his mother’s 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee after talking on the phone with a female acquaintance who was in the Lexus with two men and another woman. The women got out, Piscione argued with one of them and one got in the Jeep with Piscione, according to North Providence Deputy Police Chief Paul Marino.
Piscione got back out of the Jeep with a shotgun and fired at least two shots at the Lexus, Marino said. The police found one bullet hole in the right rear fender of the Lexus.
Piscione fled and was later stopped by Warwick Police after the North Providence police issued an all-points bulletin seeking help locating him, Marino said. "
-- with reports from Journal staff writer Richard Dujardin

Sassette: I bet some harsh words will be exchanged in the Mollis home tonight...

Xen: Oh, yeah....
"Now junior... what has your stepfather told you about taking his shotgun? NO! You just sit right there MISTER!. Listen to me when I'm speaking to you. And you are NOT leaving the table until you finish your cheesy-mac. You are in such big trouble. I...I don' t KNOW what to do with you. That's IT... Your father is taking your X-BOX for TWO WEEKS ... maybe even until after the preliminary hearing."

Re-Affirming the Grand Pooh-Bah

Xen:
So as I was out running, they were having the governor's inauguration at the state house. As part of it they had a military fly-over with the RI National Guard. There were 3 huge helicopters in formation and then two major aircraft, that were probably C-130's from what I could see. they banked over the state house lawn at a slow cruising speed as there was a multiple gun salute down on the ground.

As I was running by one of the buildings at Brown University, this construction guy was working out of the back of his truck. He sees me coming and says ... in all seriousness .... "Hey. Did you see those planes? Did they really bomb?" And I mean it when I say there was a level of fear in his expression.

I was like .."Yeah, it was pretty cool ... Wait. No, it was a fly-over for the governor's inauguration!"
He was greatly relieved.

Sassette:
Heh. I can only IMAGINE how much this cost.

Inappropriate Behavior

This bothers me.
No matter how much Saddam Hussein deserved to die ~ and please do not misunderstand me, he most certainly did ~ I still find it disgusting that anyone should celebrate it as if it were a party.

Will It Go 'Round in Circles?

JOHN EDWARDS ANNOUNCES FOR PRESIDENCY
From CNN.COM (quoted in partial)

"It's absolutely crucial that America re-establish its moral authority
and leadership role in the world," Edward said on CBS "Early Show."

Edwards' campaign got a little ahead of itself Wednesday and announced
his intentions online a day early. His Web site briefly featured the
logo "John Edwards '08" and its slogan, "Tomorrow begins today" --
literally, in this case -- before aides quickly removed them.

In his message to supporters, Edwards listed five priorities to change
America. Among them: "Guaranteeing health care for every single
American, "Strengthening our middle class and ending the shame of poverty,"
"Leading the fight against global warming," and "Getting America and the
world to break our addiction to oil."


Xen: Here's my take on this.
The first statement (all of the above comes from the middle of the CNN
article) to me is exactly the wrong attitude to proport. Pronouncing
our "moral superiority" is part of the way we got where we are. I
understand what he probably MEANS, but I already am tired of this sort
of rhetoric.

The only way for us to "re-establish" moral authority and leadership is
to not act (nationally) as we have.

As a great philosopher said: "There is no try. Do."

The second thing I have about this is the last paragraph.
Thank you, Mr Edwards for making the obvious and trite you five
priorities for America. Excuse me, but NO SH*T.
How about alchemy? Any interest in that as number 6 on the priority list?

And your wording, since I am being a stickler here...."and ending the
shame of poverty". Are you saying the goal is to have people not
feeling SHAMED by their poverty (and not to necessarily end it)?
Or are you saying you wish to end poverty, which is something people should be ashamed of?

If you can't succinctly state your goals and priorities, dude....

I think that most people would have these among their own top
priorities - what about telling us that you are going to lay out your
plan for achieving these high and mighty things? Because as far as I
know, every one of those things is nearly unachievable unless the
Congress, the taxpayers and corporations of this (and other) countries
are 100% behind taking radical new initiatives....

I know it's your first day and all, John. But we've heard and seen you
a short 24 months ago - and you need more than stating the obvious,
poorly, I might add, to win the hearts and votes of America.
IMHO

Sassette:
I wondered the same thing.
Is he going to, as president, launch a PR campaign so that people are
proud to be poor?

And how is he going to strengthen the middle class, exactly?
Weight-lifting? Because between outsourcing and illegal immigration,
there won't be any middle class left to speak of very soon...

And health care for everyone. Does that mean government subsidized
healthcare for the poor and elderly, and outrageously expensive and
diminished healthcare options for those that work and pay taxes who
aren't lucky enough to be past the age of retirement?

Priorities don't butter the biscuits.
Platitudes don't feed the bulldog.
Empty promises don't shuck the corn.... :-)

Wait, Xen ... the great philosopher you are quoting is Yoda?

Xen:
Yeah ... what? What's your point?

Sassette:
I was just skimming along, and I did a double take: Like, Yoda?

Xen:
BWAH !! I love all your Sass-isms !!
Another one... "Rhetoric won't open the Pub" Hee!
You could run the "Proud to be Poor" campaign.... you have the talent.
...
and we all know what it's like to be relatively, though not disastrously, poor.

"We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner ...."
"But we would !"

I WANT TO HEAR THE PLANS. I find it insulting that, after 8 years of
being told by this administration that "We don't need to know the
details" only to find out later that we were either lied to or there
WERE no details, I have to hear altruistic platitudes with not even the
hint of how one might choose to attain these lofty accomplishments.

Health care for everyone and strengthening the middle class ...
Talk to me JE ...Talk to me.

Sassette:
Seriously - everyone says that. Republicans and Democrats alike say the
same type of things. It is the "how" that is the difference. Don't talk
in broad strokes. You are 100% correct - after 8 years of living in the
dark this country needs details. We cannot afford to trust that our
leaders have our best interests at heart.
I wish that it could be deemed unconstitutional to campaign on
television.
Think about it: no mysterious, insinuating negative adds financed by
shadowy third-party organizations; no more crappy or nonexistent ideas
being distilled into a slick, 30 second sound-byte that grabs attention
if not imagination; no more "debates" where the questions and answers
are scripted and even the horribly overly dramatic mugging for the
camera seems rehearsed.
Imagine a world where candidates actually had to communicate their ideas
to the public by only the written word and the radio? Imagine a world
where the candidates weren't weeded out by who had the biggest war
chest, but who had the biggest grasp of what the country needed?
What? I can hope. I also still believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter
Bunny, and the Sandman...

Xen:
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace"

The High School That Says NEE !!

McWalters to decide yearbook photo flap
By Gina Macris (Projo)
PORTSMOUTH — The commissioner of education has been asked to weigh in on the issue of the Portsmouth High School student who has been prohibited from using a senior yearbook photo showing him carrying a prop medieval sword.
The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Patrick Agin and his mother, Heidi Farrington, and the Portsmouth School Committee have agreed to a ruling from Commissioner Peter McWalters as a means of expediting a case before the U.S. District Court.
The ACLU originally filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island Superior Court last week seeking an injunction to prevent the high school from printing the yearbook without Patrick’s senior photo.
The complaint alleges that high school principal Robert Littlefield violated Agin’s right to free speech when he rejected the photo. Agin is a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, an international organization that re-enacts medieval and Renaissance history.
Littlefield has suggested he believes the photo would violate the school’s “zero tolerance” against weapons.
The Portsmouth School Committee, the defendant in the case, had the jurisdiction changed to the federal court, where Judge William Smith held a conference in chambers on Friday.
Smith has indicated he wants the case resolved before a Feb. 28 deadline for publication of the yearbook.
The ACLU agreed to file an administrative appeal of Littlefield’s decision with McWalters “so as to not involve unnecessarily the federal judiciary in this dispute,” Smith wrote in an order published after Friday’s conference.
The ACLU filed the administrative appeal yesterday, according to Steven Brown, the executive director of the local chapter. But the appeal does not mean the federal court will yield jurisdiction of the case.
In his order, Smith urged McWalters to decide the appeal no later than Jan. 19 “because of the expedited nature of this case.”
He also ordered the ACLU and the School Committee to report back to him by Jan. 5.

Sassette: What say you?

Xen: I have several thoughts, Maid Sassete.
Firstly, I think that the kids ongoing enrolment in the "club" shows a viable interest in the subject. It's not as if he's a kid obsessed with dressing like a terrorist and performing rituals over a death-wish list of fellow students. On the other hand, if it was me and they said the MONSTER SWORD wasn't allowed by blanket policy, then I would probably use my creativity to get a picture that showed my interest without policy problems. Maybe I'd ask about a lance or something - and if that finally didn't appease them I would probably have something without a weapon, but that showed my interest in the organization.
The policy, to me, is one of those typically hard core black & white laws that doesn't take into account common sense.
To me, in the real world, it would be as when I was a kid. If the principal allowed that child's picture and my kid wanted to dress like Rambo but they said no ...I'd ask why...then accept it. I don't agree with the 'immediately go to court because you restricted my underage son's "right" to free speech.' Mostly because I believe that if a child is under 18, he HAS NO SUCH RIGHTS.
So ...to sum up.
Xen's opinion is that the school and society's policies are wrong. And the kid is wrong. And the kid's parents are wrong. And we have better, more important educational discussions and arguments to have that this. So everyone's time is being wasted.
Hell ...now our time is being wasted because we are discussing it ...LOL !!! That's it... we must lay siege to the school! Gather the feathers and boil the oil.... Now where did my dragon get off to? "PUFF??? PUFF !!! Here, boy! Sassette & I have got some people for you to eat..."

Sassette: Agreed.
I wish the article stated exactly what the policy states, because I really don't think that you can take a completely informed position without knowing what about the photo is in violation of the policy.

If it is merely the sight of a "weapon" in the photo that is being claimed to violate a "zero tolerance" weapons policy, then I think the school administrators involved should have their heads examined. The photo was taken by a private photographer, not on school grounds, and the "weapon" in question is part of an historical costume.

My feeling is that if the school is going to allow students to enter yearbook photos of themselves involved in their hobbies/extracurricular activities, even if they are not school-sponsored, then the photo should be allowed. For instance, if this was a photo of a student holding a surf board, or paint brush, or bowling ball - would there still be a problem? If yes, then the photo goes; if no, the photo stays.

Xen: OK, I would have a problem with any dork who wants to have their yearbook photo showing them holding a BOWLING BALL.... That SHOULD be disallowed!!!!

Sassette (rolling eyes): If there is a rule that all student photos must be taken in proper dress, sans piercings, unnatural hair color, visible tattoos, etc., then the photo is clearly unacceptable. Personally I feel that this is the only sensible school policy, because letting teenagers (and probably their parents...)

Xen (interjecting): Sad, but very true in today's world ... these parents came up with TIE-DYE and Earth Shoes after all

Sassette: AS I WAS SAYING... letting teenagers decide what constitutes "acceptable dress" is never going to work. The generation gap prohibits teens and adults from seeing eye-to-eye on these things.

That said, I feel that the time and energy being expended on this issue is ridiculous. "Zero tolerance" policies are stupid and insipid and should be done away with . (I have a "zero tolerance" policy for "zero tolerance" policies) Now we have school administrators, judges and the ACLU all wasting time on something that however unfair (if the policy was indeed unfairly applied) should have been obeyed.

Parents of this generation are doing their children a HUGE disservice by treating every perceived slight against their precious little ones as an assault on civil liberties. The school wasn't burning books for heaven's sake! His costume is a foolish choice for immortalization in a yearbook! The idea that a photograph of a replica of a medieval sword constitutes a violation of a weapons policy is as foolish as the costume itself. But foolishness is not a crime worthy of this much attention from people (parents, student, educators, judges, ACLU reps) who should really have more important things to do.

I know I have more important things to do...

Xen: SO THERE. CASE SOLVED. An Edict has been made.

Fractured Christmas Carols

GEORGIE the YOUNGER

(To the Tune of Frosty the Snowman)

Georgie the Younger was a scary clueless soul
With his VP really running the show
And the election that they stole

Georgie the Younger is a president they say
He puts on a show
But the people know how he came to life one day
There must of been some magic in
Florida they found
When the Dems called for a recount
The Supreme Court shut them down

Georgie the Younger waged war in Iraq
At the people who say it's not goin our way
He yells unpatriotic crap

Georgie the Younger told us to stay the course
He ignored the mounting evidence that things were getting worse
The majority of people know that he is lying
He can spin and spin like a Christmas top
But soldiers are still dying

This whole thing has been a mess
Starting at the top
But he just digs in deeper when people holler stop!

Georgie the Younger
Has not the grace to blanch
Unlike our soldiers, when things get tough
He hides out at his ranch

When Is Stealing Not Punished Like Stealing? When You Steal from the National Archives!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/21/berger.documents.ap/index.html

This may be me going all fire & brimstone again, but how did Sandy Berger get no jail time? He purposely, with premeditation, stole and destroyed classified documents from the National Archives. The documents had been requested (subpoenaed?) as part of an investigation. At the very least he stole property of the people of the United States - part of the history of this country. At worst, he potentially made this country more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks by not allowing the information to be reviewed and analyzed. He should have gone to jail!

Also, why was he not being closely monitored by SOMEONE? He was accessing records from the administration that he had been involved with, AND he was representing President Clinton who the documents pertained to. Why was this not treated more seriously?

Can you imagine John Q. Public stealing one-of-a-kind documents from the National Archives, and not getting any jail time?

FIE.

I've Got Rhythm! I've Got Rhythm!

Ok, as is as written in the article below, I too would expect Bush to put an abortion foe up for any sort of family planning position. It is a given. But why an anti-contraceptive person?

At least with abortion (full disclosure: I am pro-choice) the anti-abortion groups can make the argument that a life is being lost. This belief is greatly informed by what sort of religious (and scientific) beliefs that you hold or reject - but at least it is not hypocritical.

If you believe that life begins at the moment of conception, then abortion is something that you would probably not be able to support. Personally, I believe it is a right that has to be available to women. But at least I can see the thought process that would lead someone to hold an opposing view.

(Although in my opinion; being against something and being against the right of others to feel differently and thus live accordingly are two different things. Or should be.)

But with contraception, no life or even potential life is lost! To put someone who is unilaterally opposed to contraceptives in charge of the government's family planning office is ridiculous and insulting.

And I don't care if he supports the Rhythm Method. That is like putting someone who is against missiles but favors rocks and sticks in charge of the Department of Defense.

I really wish someone could explain to me what the difference is between using a latex sheath, a pill, or a thermometer, pen, and "ovulation journal" to prevent pregnancy! Why is one method acceptable, while the others are not? In all three cases the intent is to actively prevent conception by artificial means. Are pens, paper and thermometers any less artificial than drugs or latex? I just don't get it.

Or is it because condoms and oral contraceptives are a lot easier to be successful with?

(from Projo.com)

Anti-family-planning chief
01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, November 28, 2006

President Bush has made a truly inappropriate, and bizarre, choice to oversee federal family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. The new official, Eric Keroack, a gynecologist, works for a Boston-based concern that opposes birth control, except presumably such methods as the rhythm method. That goes for unmarried and married people!
The appointment recalls the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager opposes the prescription of contraceptions. Thus, his appointment, like that of Dr. Keroack, was an ideological statement, not a practical public-health one.
The organization whence cometh Dr. Keroack, who is now deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, promotes abstinence or "sexual purity and self-mastery." The group, A Woman's Concern, won't provide information about artificial birth control of any kind. We expect Mr. Bush to name an abortion foe to such jobs, but naming someone who opposes birth control is outrageous, except to a tiny sliver of the population with intense theological views.
The means to plan their pregnancies is women's right, and a societal good. A string of unplanned pregnancies can condemn women to a life of poverty. Dr. Keroack's appointment is a slap in the face of good public policy.

When Ranting Doesn't Work - Mocking Will.....

Xen rants:
Read Ed Achorn 's article this AM. He kind of ticks me off lately. Though I agree that we shouldn't have the "party lever" on the ballots, it seems to me that the biggest annoyance is the simple utter DEMOCRAT-NESS of RI - and the biggest PROBLEM is voter apathy.

The little guys who wanted reform in the state assembly weren't "hurt" by the all Democrat vote as much as the STATE was hurt because so many people ran unopposed. Think of that. In a time when you can't have TWO people agree on ANYTHING, and when everyone is "special", this state has that many positions where NO ONE WANTS TO EVEN TRY TO GET ELECTED. Makes zero sense to me .

Anyway... it's just the same old, same old. My point about Achorn's article was that this was a waste of newsprint. It was better than taking the election day space and using it as a (very nice, but misplaced) tribute to a relative... but still, I don't agree with his assessment that "if you take away all straight party votes, then Chaffee would have won". He even mentions that a lot of people would have STILL voted for Whitehouse ... so right there he undermines the argument. It's just so flawed that it's a pointless argument. And there are bigger things to write about ... even if it IS totally his "opinion".
So there. It's MY opinion that I disagree. And more and more I am finding his weekly article less worth it.




Sassette Responds:
Just read the Achorn article… I find it rather meandering in its focus.

Boo-hoo-hoo Ed, your preferred party didn’t fare well. Rather than blame voter apathy, unpolled cell phone using dems, Harrah’s union donations, and straight-ticket voting; how about acknowledging that people are incredibly tired of this republican administration? We’re tired of lies, obfuscation, and rising death counts in Iraq.

You can say what you want about the evils of the straight-ticket vote and the unions – but Chaffee’s held that seat for over thirty (?) years. The fact that a beloved New England Republican with a household name got trounced is a direct reflection on the opposite of voter apathy. It shows voter bitterness with the Republican party. Chaffee has been a republican all along, and the straight-ticket option has been available for over a century – so you need to look at what was DIFFERENT this time around…. And quit yer whining, Eddie.


The Actual Article from Providence Journal Opinion Columnist Edward Achorn:
Edward Achorn: A system that promotes 'voting without thinking'
01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, November 28, 2006

THE NOV. 7 ELECTION in Rhode Island did not go the way the pollsters predicted. They had Governor Carcieri up by roughly 7 points -- in poll after poll -- and saw Sen. Lincoln Chafee dramatically closing the gap in the waning days against Sheldon Whitehouse.
The results, thus, were stunning: Mr. Whitehouse won in a cakewalk, and Mr. Carcieri very nearly got heaved out of office. Clearly, many Democratic voters whom the pollsters were unable to reach turned out at the polls. Were they cell-phone owners, difficult to poll? Were they rare or casual voters, and thus absent from the lists that form the basis for the polling of "likely" voters?
We know that Harrah's was pushing hard for its casino, and that casino supporters strongly favored Democrats. And we know that Harrah's gave the labor unions, through WorkingRI, $200,000 to help get out gambling-friendly voters. Meanwhile, many of the motivated voters across America were angry at Republicans over America's failure to halt violence in Iraq, blaming that on President Bush.
The most striking impact was a huge upsurge in the number of Rhode Island voters casting straight-party ballots -- checking off their desire to vote for the entire slate of Democrats, up and down the ballot, rather than taking the time and using their brains to weigh individual candidates.
The straight-party voting option is the legacy of 19th and 20th-Century machine politics. The political bosses did not want voters thinking independently -- they wanted them marching in lockstep, with the promise of patronage and taxpayer-funded benefits in exchange for party loyalty. Years ago, voters pulled an actual lever to punch the names of all of one party's candidates.
Fifty years ago, more than half of the states allowed straight-party voting. But in recent years, states have weaned themselves off the system, on the sensible grounds that it too strongly favors the dominant party and that voters should be encouraged to do their homework as citizens and weigh individual candidates. The straight-party system tends to devastate the minority party in down-ballot races, such as for state legislature.
"It seems pretty clear that what it was designed for is to keep people voting for a particular party without thinking about who they were voting for," Richard Niemi, a University of Rochester political-science professor, told the newspaper The Hill.
Which may be why Rhode Island is one of only 16 states still clinging to the machine legacy. (The others are Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.) In the Ocean State, the party in power impressively has every angle covered. Our election laws are designed to help preserve and consolidate majority power, rather than encourage competitive elections.
On Nov. 7, the straight-party system worked its wonders for Rhode Island Democrats. Some 61,357 voters cast a straight-party ballot for the Democrats -- a whopping increase of more than 23,000, or about two-thirds, over the last midterm election. Only 18,424 cast straight ballots for Republicans.
That obviously gave Mr. Whitehouse a dramatic boost, and quite possibly the winning edge. Subtract the straight-party ballots, and Mr. Chafee beat Mr. Whitehouse handily. It appears that Mr. Chafee was the preference of voters who actually took the time to mark their ballots for either candidate.
Thus, one could argue the straight-party option in Rhode Island had a tremendous impact on Nov. 7, helping flip control of the Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Of course, it seems likely that many -- if not most -- of those straight-party-ballot voters would have opted for the Democrat, in any case. But many might have sided with Mr. Chafee, whose last name is virtually a brand, and whose liberal values seem to represent those of most Rhode Islanders.
The people who really suffered, though, were down the ballot -- the reformers trying to bring more balance to the General Assembly. They got swept away in the flood. Many of the casual voters who went straight-ticket -- and thus returned the local incumbent to power -- probably never heard of either candidate in those races.
Interestingly, this phenomenon played out nationally. Of the 29 seats that House Republicans lost, 15 were in the 16 states with the straight-party option -- and another three races from those states could possibly flip, the Hill reported.
There are efforts underway in many of those states to change the system. Citizens groups and the out party tend to push for reform, while the party in power resists. It's not hard to understand why Republicans tend to support the reform more than Democrats. The latter party's incestuous relationship with public-employee unions gives it a ready-made get-out-the-vote machine, well-suited to encouraging people to vote the straight Democratic ticket.
In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for this reform to reach Rhode Island.

And Furthermore...(Sassette Weighs In)

The democrats would not have triumphed so immensely if people were not so completely fed up with the direction the administration and their legislative enablers have taken this country.

• Who wants to be reviled by the rest of the world?
• Who wants to be the ones that jail people indefinitely with no visits, no lawyers, and rhyme or reason?
• Who wants to be the ones who torture people - in other words - the BAD GUYS?
• Who wants to be the guys who back out of Kyoto, when we could set a good example; because it would be too much of a hardship on our companies?
• Who wants lobbyists writing legislation that screws Americans? Drug benefits, bankruptcy laws, energy policy, etc.?
• Who wants to see more of our fellow citizens killed when no one in charge seems concerned that our people keep dying long after "Mission Accomplished"?
  

People went democrat, because it is in our nature to want to believe there is hope, even when things look hopeless....

Now let's HOPE that the new majority will focus on doing our business, and not going all Cock of the Walk with their vanquished foes....

Don't try to impeach, don't hold endless hearings, just dig in and try and fix the mess W& Co. have made.

Xen's Post-Election Zen

I have heard (online & on the radio & on cable news-as-entertainment channels) quite a bit of bitter conservative whining/ranting this week, post election. I can't help but feel that this kind of behavior is EXACTLY what brought the results upon them by the electorate.
To lose both houses and a ton of the governorships is a massive statement. A statement indicating that more people than not are in the middle politically. This is something that the conservative leaders have tried very hard to have us believe is not true. It was a tool used in attempts to make people believe that the country was utterly polarized. That you HAD to be at one and or the other of this spectrum - and that they were the only REAL choice for leaders and governing.

These post election commentaries are still rift with fear-threats assuring us all about how the country and the world is now worse off because they aren't getting their way (that being, unrestrained power). There is a formidable level of anger, and, in many cases, the continued practice of calling the general electorate stupid. I am amazed at this arrogance.

To me, this isn't about the new time of Democrat rule. It's about non-performance. It's about abuse of powers. It's about the failure of the checks and balances in the democratic system to exist for too long a period. It's about the silent political middle not being so silent.

I am filled with happiness at the outcome of the elections because it gives me hope for the system, and it shows that people DO have a voice and can use it for change. It WORKS.

The new mix of elected officials have a huge responsibility to make progress. And they need to be humbled by the change in the face of our government by the citizens. Just like that. Peacefully. And I hope that if there is further failure, then we will change again. It's a fantastic dynamic.

We cannot be deterred by the anger, abuse and cajoling of those cast from power. It's not ABOUT conservative or liberal. It's about doing the right thing and maintaining this country's principles and ideals. To paraphrase: The ends for all do not justify the means of a few.