Left Flank

Image via Wikipedia

The Orlando Sentinel offers two analyses showing how a public good, environmental protection or transportation, hits the wall of interest-group retrenchment. It's a good example of good intentions and rhetoric withering in the face of the latest rationalization.

Welcome to the state of Florida. The nation is on the brink of a fuel crisis. Prices are headed toward $4 a gallon and destined for even greater heights as the thirst for fuel grows in China and India. God forbid the terrorists ever pull off a major attack on a Saudi oil facility.

Florida responds by killing one mass-transit project and crippling another. On top of that, the Legislature also has jeopardized a major I-4 widening project because there isn't an alternative transportation network to use during construction.

Meanwhile, Orlando has moved to fourth in a national ranking of congested cities.

You expect the Tallahassee trial-lawyer lobby to view the world through the myopic lens of huge settlements. You also would hope that political leaders, for once, could set aside that cynicism and look at the big picture.

Alas, this is Florida.

This state not only needs commuter rail but a corridor linking Orlando and Tampa, which are slowly merging into one huge megalopolis. It needs to connect this rail line to the East Coast and hopefully hook up with a passenger service that one day will link Miami and Jacksonville.

And off of these main routes we need to build a feeder network of smaller rail lines and buses.

We can't plan 50 years ahead based on the notion that we'll always be able to drive to the Mobil station and fill up with gas at prices the middle class can afford.

The target of the Florida Justice Association's ire was a proposed $100,000 cap on jury awards for accidental injuries or deaths.

«A lot of the reason for this is the frustration a lot of the senators had with the way this deal was put together,» said Paul Jess, an official with the trial-lawyers association.

«It never came to them originally. It was a done deal and presented to them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.»

The commuter-rail bill would have granted sovereign-immunity protection to the private contractors hired by government to run the commuter-rail line -- handling everything from switching to security. This protection would cap jury awards at $100,000 per victim in cases of accidental injuries or deaths.

In 2002, the Legislature gave that protection to the Tri-Rail commuter system in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. Trial lawyers didn't want the same arrangement cropping up elsewhere, even though the state has regularly waived that cap to settle with injury victims on Tri-Rail.

«Another governor or DOT secretary could come in, wave their hand and say 'No more,' » Jess said.

Two weeks ago, Webster tried to, in effect, buy off the trial lawyers with higher sovereign-immunity caps and doubled attorneys fees. To appeal to South Florida Democrats -- the trial lawyers' base in the Senate -- he offered a $2-a-day rental-car surtax to help pay for Tri-Rail and Central Florida's trains.

But Jess said the group had never sought that concession -- and was insulted by it.

Webster and Senate Minority Leader Steve Geller, D- Cooper City, ultimately met with the trial lawyers late Thursday with a desperation deal: eliminating the sovereign-immunity protection from both Tri-Rail and Central Florida's rail line.

But it was too little, too late. The lawyers had dug in.

«We're just trying to keep them from repeating a mistake they made in 2002,» Jess said.

No, Mr. Jess, the mistake happened when you received a college degree.

Stephen Hawking's quip in this Charlie Rose interview about humans "dropping the basket before distributing the eggs", referring to the urgency of human colonization of space before the current Earth-challenged generations destroy themselves through "stupidity and greed", prompts this comparison. What's more important, space traffic control, or Cape Canaveral?

On one hand, there's practicality.

The traditionally festive Space Day at the Capitol last Thursday was transformed from a purely symbolic event into a series of hurried, closed-door pleas for state incentives. Teams from Lockheed Martin, Space Florida and NASA scrambled to hit all 160 members of the state Legislature. Their tactics were exhaustive, and so was the wish list.

They asked for a new $45 million space incentive fund to lure companies looking to relocate. They also wanted a grab-bag of other financial sweeteners for aviation and aerospace companies willing to do business in Florida.

These included extending tax breaks previously offered to defense contractors, and pumping $20 million into a multi-university research and technology center that could cluster space-related brain power. State budget writers are also being asked to extend work-force retraining dollars for the thousands of soon-to-be unemployed shuttle workers.

Legislators have already filed bills to give future commercial space ventures immunity to lawsuits in the event of deaths except in cases of negligence -- similar to what Virginia and other states have done. And it is not just Virginia that Florida needs to worry about. Experts point to developing launch sites in New Mexico, Texas, California and Oklahoma, as well as pads in South America and Russia.

Competition can be a good thing, but space is limited.

"The real crucial thing is some system for collision avoidance and a process to ensure that people don't run into each other," she says. It may look like space leaves plenty of room to maneuver, but objects are moving so fast that once they swing into sight, it's too late.

Between the how of launching vehicles from the ground to the stars, and keeping those phallic-shaped fuel containers from creating big fireballs, there's a debate larger than how Florida's Brevard County–or even how the Mars program–pays the bills. The debate at Space Politics is a lively place to end.

Look, there's no doubt that there is, and should be, an emotional component to our space policy decisions. But it's not at all clear that getting someone excited by watching a Shuttle launch is going to lead to good decisions. For instance, it might lead to a decision to continue to fly the Shuttle, just because it's so awesome, and wouldn't it be a shame to not be able to watch it any more? Or it might lead to a decision to support Ares because it's «Shuttle-derived» (never mind the fact that there's not much Shuttle derivation left in it). Or it might lead to a decision that because the launch of a large vehicle like the Shuttle is impressive, that building smaller, but more cost-effective vehicles is a waste of money, and not a useful goal.

I repeat–the fact that a Shuttle launch is awesome doesn't, in and of itself, indicate that Shuttle flights are important. If space is important, we need to understand what's important about it, and formulate policies that will emphasize those goals. Unfortunately, we're a long way from that, partly because people who grew up on Saturns and Shuttle have developed a big-rocket fetish, and because the primary basis on which congressional decisions are made are pork, which can be the most emotional basis of all.

I agree, Rand Simberg.

Donald F. Robertson also has this colorful site related to this topic!

Welcome to the Do-Over Democrats! Not content with waffling about its own by-laws or allowing Florida and Michigan legislators to run roughshod over it, now there's talk in the "Wishy-Washy" DNC of new primaries (or caucuses, whatever!) in the two detestable states, and only the faintest whisper about who or what will pay for this extravagance. This is not a computer game!

I agree with TalkLeft's Jeralyn on do-overs, until she talks about seating delegates. "I say no new election, seat Florida and Michigan. The delegate allotment should reflect the views of the voters on the date the vote was held." No, both states broke the DNC rules, so let them suffer! Why is this concept so hard for pundits (and Dems) to accept?

Mark Schmidt is a perfect example of this limp-wristed opportunism.

My first reaction is, nothing. Support the rules. The Florida and Michigan parties made their choice and have to live with the consequences. But what if that's untenable -- because  it seems potentially damaging to the Democratic nominee in November to have two large states disenfranchised, or if you assume that something is going to happen eventually?

Well, Mark, I'm sorry, the damage is done, and now you're insulting me, one of the disenfranchised, even more! Just fûçk me, Mark, don't tell me you love me, too! I didn't expect erectile dysfunction and lies from the Dems!

The Economist is very generous.

We support the idea of new primaries in both states, assuming no clear victor emerges from the other, previously scheduled primaries (highly unlikely). They could serve as a sort of «sudden death» tie-breaker, and would be far better than leaving the decision to superdelegates. The options to pay for new primaries are a) the DNC, b) the state parties, c) the campaigns (which are both touting their record hauls in February) or d) a combination of the above. We advocate «d», but welcome your thoughts.

Of course, The Economist doesn't have to pay. Hand the bill to Howard Dean and the Florida and Michigan legislatures—out of their own pockets. There's no need for the taxpayers to get double-stuffed!

Only Matt at 2008 Dem Con Watch and Chris Bowers can make sense (and deliver informative posts).

There are a number of ways this could play out, and they are all "within the rules"

• Status Quo. No delegates from Florida or Michigan.
• The Credentials Committee seats one or both delegations as is. Totally within the rules. The Credentials Committee has the total power within the rules to seat or not seat any delegate as they choose, regardless of any previous DNC rules.
• The Credentials Committee seats the delegates, but makes each delegate worth half a vote, essentially restoring the originally proposed 50% penalty. Totally within the rules.
• The Credentials Committee seats the delegations, but makes sure they are split 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. Totally within the rules
• Either state submits a new delegate selection plan to the DNC. It is approved, and new delegates are selected. Totally within the rules. (And Delaware supposedly did this in a previous election year).

Put me down for #1!

Even more than the original debacle, what infuriates me now is the naked opportunism displayed by Democrats. Forgive me if I wax Mr. Smith-like, but what about selecting the best president in the fairest way? before January 29, I believed that process began with the Democratic primary, but now I have lost all faith in either party—in the two party system entirely! There needs to be more competition, and less corporate cash, in the electoral process.

Yes, Ralph Nader makes sense!

I'm sorry, Dr. Dean, voters are looking at the entire package, party and candidate. You can't do-over, because who will a Democratic president scapegoat the next time he/she screws up from the Oval Office? The Dems (and GOP) can't run a primary, so can a Dem run the country? If only we could do-over, and add a few more choices to the ballot!

Not only are Democrats fractious, but they like to wallow in the fact, that they can "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

In the end, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, it is likely that most of the Democrats currently unhappy with him will come home and vote for their party rather than John McCain. However, it is always problematic for a candidate to begin a campaign without the solid support of voters from within his own party (Rasmussen).

I've made my peace, and, fortunately for the Democratic party in Florida, it's quite painless. I will vote against every incumbent who voted to move up Florida's presidential primary. Since I live in state congressional and senate districts blessed with Republican congressmen, It's easy to vote Democratic.

Ðámn!

Florida Democrats refuse to play ball with the DNC, and consider themselves kingmakers.

The Democratic National Committee says Michigan and Florida could discard their primary results and hold state conventions or caucuses to allocate delegates by June 10, the party deadline for holding nominating contests. And Michigan might consider doing that.

But Florida Democrats ruled out that approach last summer, arguing it would cost the state party millions of dollars it doesn't have.

And now, after a record 1.7 million Democrats cast ballots Jan. 29, state Democrats say there's no way they will hold another nominating contest.

"Our position hasn't changed," said Alejandro Miyar, a Florida Democratic Party spokesman. "We're very satisfied that we held a fair, open election Jan. 29 and that Florida Democrats spoke in big numbers."

Even Jon Ausman, a Leon County Democratic activist who had tried to push state leaders into holding caucuses, now says the primary results should stand.

"When you have 1.7 million Florida Democrats voting, even I have to say, 'Wow,' " said Ausman, who had backed Edwards and now says he's neutral.

Ausman instead is turning his attention toward getting the state's 22 superdelegates an active role in the Denver convention, saying they are protected by the party's national charter and can't be banned.

I'm writing down names for any other races in November. It looks like my only vote for the Democrats will be for president.

Oh dámn, there has to be a few in Congress to pass health care. Alright, but this is probation!

  Finally! TNR writes an editorial with gravity and perspicacity. And, yes, the Clinton campaign is desperate, but not enough that I would condone this transparent stunt.

The back story is simple: The Florida and Michigan legislatures moved their primaries forward in the calendar to exert greater influence on the nominating process. But, by scheduling their primaries before February 5, they broke rules set by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. The GOP punished these scofflaw states by stripping them of half their delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took them all away--and, so, the Democratic candidates did not campaign in these states.

Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC's move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to "participate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," Clinton has said.

There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately.

The New Republic hasn't endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can't stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct.

Keep up the good work, TNR! Twenty or more such good editorials might just keep my money flowing to you! However, nice try, but Tad Devine is dead on:

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and their campaigns, are pressuring superdelegates to pledge support to them before Democratic voters in the remaining primaries and caucuses have made their decisions. But Democratic leaders need to let the voters sort out which one of these two remarkable people will lead our party and, we hope, the nation.

After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party's rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.

The Democratic party needs to restrain its fractious impulses before it sullies its democratic reputation and tosses the general election to the GOP. I've expressed my displeasure here often, and again on Lawyers, Guns, and Money's "The Superdelegate Question".

So, as a compromise, instead of executing the FL delegation (just joking!), as a penalty, why not compel the FL superdelegates to announce their pledges publicly and soon based on the results of the election mess they caused held last month. I know the elections were faulty, but as an expat I'm worried about being disenfranchised (again!). I doubt anything can be cobbled together in a short period of time to allow me to vote in absentia. And, I say this, too as an Obama supporter.

I'm astounded the DNC has not replied!

I'm just as concerned about the message that the Democratic party's rules about delegates and proportional representation sends to the broader electorate, but wait! What about the spectacle of a party that can't even follow its own rules because of its own ambition? What was so egregious about Florida's and Michigan's actions that necessitated this debacle? Floridians and Michiganders can deal with their own elected officials. Democrats are after all, democratic! With respect, Florida doesn't need Ezra Klein (or any other self-interested power-brokers) to tell us what's wrong with the Democratic party. Even more so, we're not flip-floppers and rule-breakers! It's the accretion of waffling and fractious behavior that will undo the Democratic party, not the behavior of any one member, however popular, in the end.

So, just stop, and let sleeping dogs lie! The Florida and Michigan delegations have already ruined my 2008 elections. Let's not provoke Democrats and independents to vote Republican! Or, change parties!

Panama City's Steve Davis makes global trade work for him, but is such harvesting ecologically sustainable? He is just satisfying the Chinese appetite at the cost of long-term marine populations?

"What we know about them wouldn't fill but about half a page in a one-page book," he said, with a wry grin.

But what he does know is that they are a good way to make money, especially at a time when Asian imports are keeping wholesale shrimp prices low. A day's work and about $70 in fuel can bring in $1,000 worth of jellyfish, he said.

Though they don't sting, they are slimy, and their mucus-like covering will cause a burning sensation if it gets in your eyes, Davis said.

Another worker with a forklift loaded the bins into a pair of waiting tractor-trailers. The jellyfish go to a processing plant in Georgia, where they are dried out, and the salt is removed. Then, they are packed into 50,000-pound containers for shipping to China and Japan, Newton said.

He retrieved a plastic bag from his truck to show to curious visitors. Inside were three yellowish wafers about 5 inches across.

"They're all protein and taste like whatever you put on them," he said.

According to the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the dried jellyfish are popular in Asia as salad toppers, or with cooked vegetables. A four-ounce serving contains 30 calories, 8 grams of protein and 120 milligrams of sodium.

I trust Steve will keep the secret to himself!

Another indication of how skewed out of shape elections are in the US:

One day after Florida Democratic officials said they would defy the national party and press ahead with plans for a Jan.29 presidential primary, the consequences became a bit clearer.

One early casualty: the state party's Oct.26-28 convention in Orlando, which had been expected to draw the entire Democratic presidential field to Walt Disney World. Instead, the candidates will likely be no-shows.

«We'd love to have them,» Florida Democratic spokesman Mark Burbriski said. «But we know it doesn't look like that's going to happen.»

And thanks to the pledge they signed under pressure from Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- the only states authorized to hold primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5 -- it appears that the Democratic presidential candidates will neither campaign nor run commercials in Florida, much to the chagrin of television stations.

«We figured this thing was going to be a shootout,» said Bill Bauman, general manager of WESH-Channel 2 in Orlando. «But when they're not campaigning in Florida, they're not spending money.»

Disney World and TV stations? Isn't this the Democratic party?