Year-End Award Suggestions?
Hot on the heels of yesterday's contest, we're once again going to our readers for suggestions. This Friday and next Friday will be our annual hijacking of the year-end awards categories from The McLaughlin Group. So it's time to review the year, and come up with some names to fill the following slots.
Feel free to suggest anyone or anything you'd like. The only rules of interpretation for what the categories mean are your own. If I think they're the best suggestion I've heard, I may use some of your suggestions in this Friday's column. We'll be returning to this subject next week, for part two, with a whole new set of categories. For now, who would you select for any or all of the following? Post your choices in the comments!
Biggest Winner of 2011
Biggest Loser of 2011
Best Politician
Worst Politician
Most Defining Political Moment
Turncoat Of The Year
Most Boring
Most Charismatic
Bummest Rap
Fairest Rap
Best Comeback
Most Original Thinker
Most Stagnant Thinker
Best Photo Op
Worst Photo Op
Enough Already!
Worst Lie
Capitalist Of The Year
Honorable Mention
Person Of The Year
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
biggest winner is hillary clinton. somewhat quietly, she came out looking brilliant. if i wasn't second-guessing my '08 primary vote beforehand...
biggest loser is osama bin laden. i mean really, who lost worse this year than him? ghadaffi maybe?
best and worst politician, as well as best comeback, are all newt gingrich.
most defining political moment was the forcible expulsion of occupiers from their encampment in downtown new york. anyone who thinks that's the end of it must be smoking something.
turncoat of the year (and thus far the millenium) is arne duncan, followed closely by the president himself. no republican could have harmed schools and teachers more and gotten away with it.
fairest rap and worst lie both go to scott walker of wisconsin. the anti-union measures were about saving money, until they weren't. that guy deserves to be recalled like the poser he is, followed closely by rick scott of florida. as a matter of fact, we should merge them both into one guy named rick scott walker and recall that.
bummest rap has been wall street protesters, 70% of whom ARE employed, and protesting in addition to their jobs, not instead of. nobody in the press has seemed to mention that.
most original thinker is herman cain. 9-9-9 may be a dumb idea as-is, but the guy knows how to market a policy to the american public. president obama should take notes.
most stagnant thinker is noam chomsky. apparently it's still all israel's fault.
enough already! this award was made for donald trump, and should probably henceforth be named after him.
honorable mention goes to president obama, for kinda-sorta-almost standing up for american jobs. well, at least giving a good speech about standing up for american jobs. two speeches, even. golf clap, mr. president.
person of the year... the way i see it, nobody represents all the fire, ambiguity, technology and turbulence of 2011 better than steve jobs. for better and worse. R.I.P.
NYpoet,
While I could argue with many of your choices (and likely will) I gotta hand it to you.
They were delivered with ZZZZZZZZZZZiiiiiiiiinnngggg!! :D
Michale
195
biggest winner is hillary clinton. somewhat quietly, she came out looking brilliant. if i wasn't second-guessing my '08 primary vote beforehand...
Gotta agree with this... ALL of it.. :D
biggest loser is osama bin laden. i mean really, who lost worse this year than him? ghadaffi maybe?
I think Daffy got the worst end. He was "popsicle'ed" before he was shot to death..
most defining political moment was the forcible expulsion of occupiers from their encampment in downtown new york. anyone who thinks that's the end of it must be smoking something.
Oh, it's the end of the Oowzers.. They have nothing to occupy.. :D
We might see some resurgence in the spring when it's more comfy for them. If they have more than 2 brain cells to rub together, they will ditch the military parlance AND their anarchists and militant elements and call themselves "The 99%"....
The problem will come when the public will expect them to ACT like 99%'ers, rather than like spoiled brats.
honorable mention goes to president obama, for kinda-sorta-almost standing up for american jobs. well, at least giving a good speech about standing up for american jobs. two speeches, even. golf clap, mr. president.
I'll let a Democrat speak for me on the subject of Obama.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/cardozas-corner/198861-the-professorial-president
person of the year... the way i see it, nobody represents all the fire, ambiguity, technology and turbulence of 2011 better than steve jobs. for better and worse. R.I.P.
Couldn't agree more....
Michale
196
Why are we looking for the biggest winner and loser of 2010? Isn't it 2011?
Why are we looking for the biggest winner and loser of 2010? Isn't it 2011?
hehehehehehee Now THAT's funny... :D
Good catch...
Michale
200
the forcible expulsion of occupiers from their encampment in downtown new york. anyone who thinks that's the end of it must be smoking something
I can't speak for New York, but it's hard for me to see anything much continuing of Occupy Boston. The camp wasn't just a tactic. It was infrastructure. People who disagree on almost everything came together under the mutual assumption of good faith, and talked at length about how to fix the system, as well as about the sort of perennial deep questions we imagine being discussed in late-night college-dorm bull sessions. That doesn't happen much on the internet, if at all. Online we have TL;DR, and we have trolls or near-trolls outnumbering open-minded dissenters.
For example, y'know my idea of how to achieve roughly-proportional representation, that I push whenever it's even tangentially relevant? Want to know how many people have ever given the suggestion any serious consideration online? Just pick a round number. As in, a numeral that's literally circle-shaped. At Dewey Square, one or two people actually heard the scheme with an open mind.
My proposal may be profoundly stupid and worthless, of course. But with the Great Recession and the political polarization and the rapidly accelerating inequality of wealth, income, and power, we need some brainstorming. Inside-the-box half-measures aren't cutting it. We need to sift through some might-be-worthless ideas.
The tent with the Gadsden flag, the anarchists' table, the End the Fed people -- all of it coexisted in a way that it doesn't when forcibly dispersed.
dsws,
The biggest problem with the Oowzers is that they felt they had the right to air their grievances in a manner that interfered with OTHER people's rights..
That was my biggest beef with the "movement".
They were, in effect, standing up and saying,
"MY rights are more important than ANYONE ELSE's rights!!!"
That is simply not the way to engender support...
Michale.....
204
On the other hand...
TIME Magazine seems to agree with ya'all..
They have made "The Protester" Person Of The Year...
TIME made Ayatollah Khomeini POTY, so I guess this isn't a big surprise...
Michale
207
dan,
for the time being, most of the occupiers seem to be transitioning to foreclosed homes, to shed light on robo-signing and other foreclosure shenanigans by the banks to evict the legitimate residents. but on the west coast there's been some unfortunate port closures as well. that stuff makes no sense to me. some of the individual encampments may not come back, but the people who participated in the occupy sites will find other places to congregate. the conditions that drove them to protest haven't changed, so the protests will re-group and continue.
joshua
Dsws,
What plan? It would seem to me that only by getting rid of the Senate could you achieve proportionality.
Nypoet,
My sources tell me that Occupy is beginning to deliberately splinter into sub-groups that will "occupy" in a flash mob sense.
The reasoning behind it is that too many disparate goals (anti-war, wall street, foreclosures, rights issues, ...) causes friction in large numbers, but is handleable in smaller groups ... especially if the founding impulse is localized and targeted.
My understanding is that actions will be short (1 or 2 days max) to avoid extended conflict with the police. In fact, I believe there is at least one contingent that is contemplating a sub rosa arrangement with the police in exchange for a specific timeline. A modified syndicalist arrangement if you will.
DerFarm -
To quote that learnéd philosopher Homer (Homer Simpson, that is):
"D'oh!"
The vagaries of cutting and pasting... it has been fixed... thanks for pointing it out.
:-)
-CW
Person of the Year: Jess Goodell
Occupy Portland Mom Places 4-Year-Old Daughter On Train Tracks During Protest To Shut Down Port of Portland…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2ztak_wBwGc
Oh yes...
We need more of the Oowzers...
Michale.....
210
My sources tell me that Occupy is beginning to deliberately splinter into sub-groups that will "occupy" in a flash mob sense.
Flash Mobs???
http://violentflashmobs.com/
Oh yes.. This is a definite improvement over parents putting kids on RR tracks..
Maybe... :^/
What is it about Left Wing protests and demonstrations that seem to believe violence and law-breaking is required???
Michale......
211
I was think more along the lines of this kind of flash mob...
*Thinking*
I was think(ing) more along the lines of this kind of flash mob...
I am sure you were... :D
Because the Oowzers to date, have been only interested in dancing, right?? :D
Michale.....
212
Actually, Bashi, that is exactly the idea ... at least from the youngsters communicating with me. I like to think it an extension of the Wobblies Free Speech fights. They seem to think it applies also.
The example I was sent was slightly different, but then my folks are more into music/theatre than dance.
I've already committed the $$$ to give 50 people 1 hour dance or singing lessons. Its supposed to lift the tone of the protest. Right. and I got land in SE Louisiana I'd like to sell ya!
BTW,
If you watch closely, at about 1:55-1:58 you'll see a guy in a blue shirt join in. He was not part of the mob, just felt like joining in. Also joining in was a guy in a stripped shirt at about 2:38.
I'm told that this was the reason this particular segment was chosen. It was hoped that a singing/dancing flash mob would encourage participation by "normal" human beings in the eventual micro protest.
A good idea. Worthy of DeLeon, Hayword and Hoffman. We'll see if it works.
Biggest Winner of 2011: Newt Gingrich.
He'll be able to sell SO MANY BOOKS after his current boomlet. And if his current boomlet is NOT shortenend by reality, MAN!!!! So many books, so little time, and can that sumbitch TALK!!!! ... at 60K a speech.
Biggest Loser of 2011: Rick Perry
Even in Texas going from #1 to less than Ron Paul is a fall from grace. I'm afraid the storied career of Rick Perry is dead over kaput. Yup, its cucumber sandwiches and bags of hammers for the foreseeable future for future ex-governor of Texas.
Worst Politician: Sharon Angle. concievably the only person on Earth that could lose to Harry Reid.
Luckiest Politician: Toss-UP
Harry Reid because of Sharon Angle
Mike Castle because of Christine McDonnell
Unluckiest Politician: Beau Biden
That whup-whup-whup sound you hear from Delaware is Beau Biden kicking himself for not running against Mike Castle.
Ok, Ok.
Sharon Angle is SOOOOOOO 2010.
But I've been drinking again. And hey, it is SO MUCH FUN to diss Sharon ... both angle and ariel
DerFarm [23] -
Hey, don't blame yourself. After all, it originally read "2010" in the headings...
Heh.
:-)
Saw Christine O'Donnell just endorsed Mitt. So 2010 is in the news again, it appears.
-CW
To everyone -
Keep all these good suggestions flowing in, I've got to get all of this together for Friday...
-CW
What plan? It would seem to me that only by getting rid of the Senate could you achieve proportionality.
I favor checks and balances: a proportional-representation chamber and a plurality-elected chamber. So I want to leave the Senate elected as it is (greatly weaken the filibuster, though) and make the House proportional.
The way I want to make the House proportional is simply to let people choose when they register which House seat they're going to vote for.
So a party with the support of (for example) 6% of the electorate could have a registration drive in MA -- not to register the unregistered, but to get its sympathizers (need not be active supporters) to all register for seat 9. With 9 seats in the state, each one has roughly 11% of the state's voters, give or take a few as people register a little unevenly for various reasons. The small party would choose a slightly under-subscribed seat to target, and if no other party targeted the same seat, their 6% could be a majority of that seat's constituents. At 6%, they would have a chance. At 11%, they would be able to get representation if they were organized enough.
What I especially like about it is that you don't have to put anything in the rules about parties, and having the elections department recognize parties and grant them a ballot line or whatever. There's no overt establishment of supposed-to-be parties in a supposed-to-be proportional system. There's just a simple set of rules that (if I'm right) would favor a roughly-proportional system the same way single-seat plurality elections favor a two-party system.
Of course, the obvious appeal, what I want to use to sell it, is that it cuts the Gordian knot of gerrymandering.
dan,
that's a good idea, but there's a practical problem you'd have to overcome to implement it. in larger states you'd have fifty or even a hundred different ballots in the same polling place, depending on where they live and for which district they registered. this would result in all sorts of clerical errors and would be a nightmare for poll workers and in exit polling, much less a re-count. i'm not saying it would be impossible, but it could be very problematic.
i favor language like the florida fair districts amendments:
(a)?No apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.
(b)?Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection 1(a) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.
(c)?The order in which the standards within subsections 1(a) and (b) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.
http://fairdistrictsnow.org/redistricting/amendments/
I'm not proposing to increase size of the House, so 53 is the current maximum and I don't see California doubling its share of the population.
The number of errors wouldn't be zero, but I don't see why it would be excessive. Currently, you tell your name twice, once when you get your ballot and once when you put it in the box. They check you off on two lists. Checking a number on each of those lists would be no big deal. And if a few people vote for the wrong seat by mistake, it's just the same as if they had registered for the other district.
A hand re-count doesn't seem all that hard either. Have a pattern of dark and light areas (or different colors) along the edge of the ballot, wide enough so that it looks like a set of separate stripes along the side of a stack instead of a gray stripe of bar codes. Then any ballot that's in the wrong stack will stand out as you riffle through. Then count each stack separately.
Imposing three mutually contradictory standards on a districting process? Now that's problematic.
So Dan, (may I call you Dan?), let me see if I understand this.
1. There are 10 seats in MA
2. I don't say who I want to vote for, I say which seat I want to vote in, in some time frame prior to the election (We'll set aside Maine for the time being).
3. I then vote my choice of PARTY in that seat ... not person?
I don't think so. I fully realize that you SHOULD get candidates more in tune with the general feeling of the constituency than in the current plan.
1. You must realize that I could easily find out that I've just helped elect my cousin Wayne ... He's the sumbitch that I'll spit on when he's lowered into the ground.
2. Further, by self-selecting constituencies in the manner you suggest, you are heightening the degree of blue/red division in the country. This is not a good thing and is a far better reason than #1 to not do this.
It would be easy enough to solve the gerrymandering problem:
1. have the Feds develop a computer program to create the congressional districts using several guidelines. Hell, have 5 different companies develop different programs to do the same thing using the same guidelines.
2. Get about 25 different maps per state per program using various combinations of the guidelines.
3. Let the lege vote which one to select.
So Dan, (may I call you Dan?)
Of course.
1. There are 10 seats in MA
There are now, but we're losing one so I used 9 in the example.
2. I don't say who I want to vote for, I say which seat I want to vote in, in some time frame prior to the election
Yes. This brings up a detail I didn't mention before. If you leave the spot blank on the voter registration form, there would be some method of choosing a default. The most obvious is to assign no-seat-stated voters to the seat with the fewest constituents, but you could also go with random or whatever.
(We'll set aside Maine for the time being).
Ok. What does Maine do?
3. I then vote my choice of PARTY in that seat ... not person?
Nope, you vote for a person. Aside from the choice of which seat you vote for, it's plain old plurality-for-the-candidate voting just like we have now.
Further, by self-selecting constituencies in the manner you suggest, you are heightening the degree of blue/red division in the country.
I don't think so. I think I'm heightening the purple/Green/(um, what color is the Libertarian Party?)/etc. division.
In states with only one House seat, it would have no effect. In states with two to five, it would mean that both major parties would get representation instead of having all-blue or all-red states. In states more populous than that, it would have a multi-party system.
The major parties would be less polarized, because their fringes would belong to minor parties.
1. have the Feds ...
Don't have the Feds do the redistricting for the Feds. It might work better for a while, but in the long run I don't want to count on one part of the federal government remaining independent of another part, any more than we can possibly avoid.
dan,
your suggestion probably would do what you say it would - for about two years. then the political parties would find new ways to game the new system. sure, there might still be a few seats in a few states going independent, but after a few election cycles there would be giant networks of partisan registration, telling their people which districts need more voters from their party, which are already "safe," lines around the block and scandal upon scandal relating to people registering just before the deadline, or being denied their voter registration because they did so twelve seconds after the deadline. further, many people would have representatives who live and have offices five hundred miles away.
these are just off the top of my head; a hundred quatloos say there are electioneers who could come up with strategies much more brilliant than mine for seeking an edge.
there would be giant networks of partisan registration, telling their people which districts need more voters from their party
That's how it's supposed to work. The more a party is organized, and the more of its supporters are willing to make an extra change of registration, the more advantage it gains. Instead of just a constant struggle to raise money for tv attack ads and GOTV robo-calls, we would also have a constant struggle to convince voters to participate in tactical re-registration.
many people would have representatives who live and have offices five hundred miles away
Only if they chose to, and no more so than is already the case for senators.
there are electioneers who could come up with strategies much more brilliant than mine for seeking an edge
There are lots of strategies for gaining an edge in the current system, too. The strategies have changed immensely over the years, as technologies and demographics have changed. But single-seat plurality elections have always led to a two-party system, no matter how everything else changed. Voter-choice constituencies would probably lead to the same party structure despite changes in strategy, too.