The 411 on Public Polling

Jim Martin, Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, has a new poll out that shows him beating his primary opponent, Greg Hecht, by a 3-1 margin.  

You know, I debated putting this thing up on the blog for a couple of days, for reasons that will soon become clear.  Finally, despite the fact that this poll means absolutely nothing, I figured if nothing else, it will fill some space, give me a chance to wax poetic about the inside baseball of political campaigns, and maybe, just maybe, educate a few folks about the mechanics of polling and exploiting those polls for your own benefit.

Exploiting a poll like this for the press hit is kind of a cheap move, which is why we weren’t even going to talk about it.  We didn’t really want to give Martin the publicity, even if it is only on AthPo.  

Anyhoo, the 3 – 1 margin that Martin’s campaign is so proud of is a 23% to 7% lead.  We were told that there would be no math, but that leaves 70% undecided.  Right away, this poll is looking less and less credible.  Of course, Jim Martin’s campaign is going to spin it by saying that Martin is such a strong candidate, people are starting to already make up their minds about him – a trend they will say is likely to continue.  Not so much.  

What else hurts the credibility of this poll?  Well, bear in mind that candidate performance in situations like this is usually measured in two ways – the uninformed vote and the informed vote.  The uninformed vote is usually a question like: “If the election for county assemblyman were to be held today, would you vote for Phineas Q. Windbag, or for Thaddeus D. Windbreaker?”  In most credible polls, the order of the candidates’ names are reversed each time, so that each candidate has an equal number of times where they are first – and yeah, it makes a difference, or at least the big brains that run the polling firms say so.

Now the “informed vote” is more interesting, and it can take numerous forms.  At its most innocuous, the pollster reads a brief, positive biographical description of each candidate (usually straight off their candidate biography) and then asks for a preference.  For instance, you might hear:
     “Phineas Q. Windbag is a democrat running for County Assemblyman.  He has served for 12 years as the county’s overseer of elevator maintenance.  In this election, he is stressing universal health care for all county residents and improving our public schools.  Phineas Q. Windbag has been married to his wife Eileen for 23 years and has three children, all of whom attend public schools.”
     “Thaddeus D. Windbreaker is a local attorney specializing in civil rights law.  He was instrumental in obtaining access for disabled residence to the weekly tractor pull.  He is a graduate of our public schools and his priorities are increased funding for our senior centers and putting more policemen on our streets.”

Sometimes, the test also includes relatively balanced negative information.  Maybe the pollster will tell you about Phineas’ 1992 DUI arrest, balanced with the fact that Thaddeus has run for County Assemblyman three times and lost.  (If you get all negative on one candidate, then that’s a push poll, a tactic everyone deplores, but many candidates still employ.)  

The bottom line on “informed vote” polling is that it is subjective by its very nature.  At this early date, we’re betting the 23% figure is an informed vote percentage.

The final thing we want to say is that there are two types of polls.  You’ve got the kind that are designed to shape campaign strategy, and the kind that are designed to make the candidate look good.  Both types are ethical, both are legitimate uses of survey data, but if you’re reading about a candidate’s poll in the newspaper, know that that poll (or at least part of that poll) was probably designed for the press hit.  

In fact, here’s the biggest thing of all.  The horserace numbers (who’s ahead, who’s behind, and by how much) are about the least useful poll numbers a campaign can have.  The polling data that helps candidates is the stuff you find in a benchmark poll – where the public is on certain issues, and how to frame your positions on those issues in such a way that your message resonates.  To a smart campaign, who’s ahead doesn’t matter one bit until about a week or two before election day, which is when a smart and well-funded campaign runs rolling tracking polls to adjust their media mix.  

Rhetorical question time, then we sum up.  Does anyone out there think that it is likely that Jim Martin is going to beat Greg Hecht on election day by a 75%-25% margin?  If so, we’ve got a vacant lot on Cedar Shoals Dr. we’d like to sell you.  It’s not likely, yet that’s what Jim Martin is wanting to imply to you.  So why give his poll any credence whatsoever?  That’s what we thought.

To sum up, here are some hard and fast rules on interpreting polls.

• Smart candidates don’t put the useful numbers out for public consumption.  Any poll that isn’t internal is just being used for the press hit.  Smart reporters know this and report on the polls in that way.


• Horserace polling doesn’t matter until less than two weeks out anyway, and no campaign in their right mind would release their rolling tracking numbers.


• Here are a few things that an informed political consumer should look out for in any public poll: Margin of Error (not included in the email we got from the Martin campaign); Sample Size; Crosstabs (demographics on which likely voters go which way – also not included in the email from Martin’s campaign); the actual polling questions used (many campaigns keep these internal because insidious media outlets like us would seize on any perceived inequity in the informed vote descriptors – Martin did not release his); most importantly, who did the poll.  (Martin’s firm, Cooper & Secrest Associates, has a good reputation.  But be aware that online polls have no control over who responds, thus the sample is not representative, also be wary of anything by Survey USA or other companies that do automated phone polling, for similar reasons.)

Too much inside baseball?  Probably so, but we’d like to do our part to make everyone out there a more informed political consumer, and while Martin’s polling antics aren’t necessarily bad, it is kind of a cheap move for a press hit.

FYI: Big Clouds o' Smoke Over Athens

Just in case you were wondering about the gi-normous cloud of smoke hanging over our fair city this afternoon, it’s the result of a “controlled burn” of some 1,000 acres out in Walton County.  We understand that Elton Dodson is already furiously writing ordinances to ensure that it won’t happen again.

Feel free to provide your own, more humorous, explanations below.

Abortion Bill

The South Dakota abortion bill, which bans all abortions except those necessary to save the mother's life, and which does not contain exceptions for rape or incest, has been signed into law by Gov. Rounds. The bill is intended to and likely will set up a new review of Roe in the Supreme Court.

Drankin' and Boobies, Jackson County style

Jackson County is considering tonight whether to allow strip clubs in the county, all of which have to be in "industrial" zones and therefore not in the county's nine cities, to sell alcohol. The county is considering a liquor-by-the-drink ordinance in four months (beer and wine by the drink was already approved earlier this year by the commission). The commissioners apparently want to assure the residents of the county's cities that allowing liquor-by-the-drink won't mean allowing tittie bars in the cities (doesn't their zoning already cover this?).

Can we let this puritanical crap go once and for all? Look, if there's anybody who needs the option of buying liquor by the drink, it's a patron of a Jackson County tittie bar (are there actually any of these, by the way?). Looking at nekked meth-whore moms in their late 20s-but-looks-like-late 40s can get pretty rough, and whiskey goggles can help out a lot.

But in all seriousness, let it go Jackson County. Let the tittie bars sell liquor, let the restaurants sell liquor. Oh, and while we're at it, I haven't forgotten about you ACC; take away those nipple blankies.

Take Out the Trash Day

Some things that fell through the cracks this week, as well as an update on some new content today.

CCSD/SPLOST
We’ve got a new post up, waxing rhetorical about the Clarke County School District and their overwhelming desire to spend $41,000 of your money on a special election they don’t need.

DA: WTF?
Also new today – more resignations in the DA’s office. Seriously, we’re pretty sure that felony cases are being tried by Ken Mauldin, two paralegals, and a pizza delivery guy that walked into the wrong office.

AOL, Yahoo, and the death of internet neutrality
We got an interesting email in out inbox recently from the American Progress Action Fund, calling our attention to some new developments on the internets. Seems that AOL and Yahoo are partnering up with a company called Goodmail to create an optional service that “certifies” emails from companies that pay between ¼ of a cent and one cent per email for the privilege. In exchange those companies get the satisfaction of knowing that their emails to customers will get through AOL and Yahoo’s anti-spam screeners and into customers’ inboxes. For some people out there, it sounds an awful lot like those “email tax” hoaxes that pop up every once in awhile. Anyway, draw your own conclusions. Here’s a link to the story we got in our inbox (they didn’t pay for the privilege, we presume), and here’s a link to an ABC News story about the same thing.

Norwood and Mine Safety
Charlie Norwood, who is more than likely going to be our next Congressman, is also the chairman of the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee. Why is this important? Well, seems that ol’ Sorry Charlie decided to shut down a hearing on mine safety, cutting off the ranking Democrat in the middle of his questioning, a full thirty minutes before the hearing was scheduled to conclude. Just thought you’d like to know that your future congressman values protecting the mining industry executives and the government appointees charged with overseeing mine safety. Of course, the fact that he values protecting those d-bags more than protecting the guys in the mines risking their lives should be troubling, to say the least. By the way, 21 miners have died since January 1 of this year, only one less than the 22 that died during all of 2005. Here’s what the AFL-CIO has to say about the whole thing. If you’re really, really, wonky – and you know we are – here’s a link to a pdf of a report on the Bush administration’s record on mine safety, courtesy of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Dan Matthews
Local blogger, Oconee County Democratic Party Chair, political gadabout, and former professional breakdancer Dan Matthews has a new talk show on Hot 100 FM. Tune in, bitches.

Coming in September, a very special election of the CCSD

If the CCSD keeps this up, the September special election they want will be a moot point, since they won’t get around to making a decision until December.

According to today’s ABH, the school board once again failed to make a decision one way or the other concerning the proposed September 19 special election on the SPLOST referendum.  Basically, the community would rather they save the $41,000 and hold the election on – gosh, we don’t know – election day?  The school board, or perhaps the consultants the school board is employing, would rather see the election go down on September 19, where it would be the only thing on the ballot.  

In the ABH story, CCSD Superintendent Lewis Holloway is quoted.  Sez Holloway: “We're still getting a lot of concern about the amount of things that are going to be on the ballot.”  Oh really, sir?  We can’t help but wonder if Jane Kidd is concerned about the number of races on the ballot?  How about Doug Lowery?  James Garland and Andy Rusk both read this blog regularly – how about it fellers?  Are you guys worried about all those races above you on the ballot?  Maybe so, maybe not; doesn’t matter because Jane and Doug and James and Andy don’t have a choice.  They don’t get to have special elections because there’s “a lot of concern” that voters may get tired  “Ballot fatigue” is a real phenomena, be we don’t see any reason why the school district should have any sort of advantage that candidates don’t have.

We’d also like to point out the “consultant” factor mentioned in the ABH.  We’re all for calling in the pros from Dover when necessary, but is it necessary to have consultants advise you as to the appropriate election date?  To be fair, those consultants are probably doing much more than advising the CCSD to have a special election, but you’ll pardon us if we think that these financial consultants should keep their hot little hands off the political side.  How much are the pros costing us anyway?  More than the projected $41,000 for the special election they’re recommending?

Finally, we’d like to discuss the perception factor on this whole special election deal.  What’s the real story here?  Is the CCSD trying to put one over on us?  We ask this because that’s a legitimate perception that could arise from the situation.  You’ve got a school district that is bending over backward to ensure that an election on a fairly important revenue and spending program doesn’t happen on election day, when turnout is relatively high.  It isn’t outside the realm of possibility to ask why the significantly lower turnout for a special election is a benefit for the CCSD.  Is it because SPLOST isn’t particularly popular among some segments of the Athens-Clarke community?  Is it because they don’t want to make the effort to actually sell the program to the voters?  We don’t know.  Your crack editorial staff usually supports SPLOST, and we’ll be voting on September 19, if that’s when the election is.  

But here’s a gentle suggestion for the CCSD.  Take the $41,000 if it’s that important to you, but have the election in November, like you’re supposed to.  Spend the $41,000 on an effort to educate the voters about why they should vote for SPLOST.  If you’re going to spend millions of our dollars, doesn’t the community deserve to give you a real mandate?

Related: Athens Banner-Herald: “Decision again postponed on tax referendum” 03/03/06

Wanted: Assistant District Attorneys

We’d like to thank Ken Mauldin for his efforts to single-handedly create more jobs in Athens-Clarke County.  That’s right kids, more vacancies at the DA’s office to report.  Our sources in the courthouse tipped us off to three more resignations from Mauldin’s office in recent days.  Two ADAs are leaving before the end of the month to enter private practice.  A third, according to our source, attempted to give Mauldin notice, but was told by the District Attorney to leave that day.

By our source’s count, this brings the total number of resignations in the DA’s office up to 5 since January 1.  You might like to know that the DA’s office, which covers Athens-Clarke and Oconee Counties has somewhere around 11 – 12 attorneys on staff.  This is not normal turnover.

This is getting ridiculous, folks.  It’s time that the citizens in Athens-Clarke County start asking some hard questions about the turnover in Mauldin’s office.  It probably wouldn’t hurt for some folks in our local and state government to start asking those questions as well.  

We’re willing to admit that we’ve always kind of liked Ken Mauldin, going back to his days as Solicitor.  He’s friendly, approachable, and hardworking.  But in the last few years, a lot of things have been going on in the DA’s office that should raise some healthy skepticism about his leadership and management skills.  

Here’s hoping that those questions get raised loudly and sufficiently enough for Ken Mauldin to get the office back on the right track.

More RE: Redistricting and the law

There actually is some precedent, albeit persuasive precedent only, for the proposition that redistricting should only occur after the decennial census. First, some factual background:

In 2002, after the 2000 census, Colorado's legislature failed to perform its duty under the state constitution to redistrict after Colorado had gained a House seat. A suit was filed that sought the courts to redistrict in light of the legislature's failure to do so; the courts did so, and the 2002 elections went forward with the districts as drawn by the courts. In 2003, the legislature finally got off their ass and drew new districts. Another suit sought to enjoin enforcement of the new legislatively drawn districts and instead keep the court-drawn ones in place. The Supreme Court of Colorado struck down the new districts and kept the court-drawn ones, intepreting Article V, Section 44 of the Colorado Constitution (which says that the legislature is supposed to redraw the districts after each census) to mean that the ONLY time redistricting could happen was after the census. Therefore, the Court found, the districts drawn in 2003 were invalid. See Salazar v. Davidson, 79 P.3d 1221 (2003). There is now a challenge to that finding pending in federal court, based on U.S. Constitution, art 1, Section 4, which gives state legislatures exclusive power over Congressional elections; the argument is that art 5 section 44 of the Colorado constitution, as interpreted, is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution because it takes control of Congressional elections away from the Colorado legislature. See Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. ____ (decided February 21, 2006) (holding that the current suit is not procedurally barred by the prior state court case). New Hampshire has also found that Congressional redistricting can only happen after the census pursuant to its constitution, although under a similar scenario as described above that also occurred there, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire found that their legislature didn't lose its chance to do its once-every-10-years redistricting just because the session expired, and therefore allowed redistricting done at the 2004 session. See In re Below 151 N.H. 135 (2004).

So back to Georgia. All of the above is to say this: Georgia's constitution has a similar provision with regard to state legislature redistricting. Georgia Constitution, Article III, Section II, Paragraph II (The apportionment of the Senate and of the House of Representatives shall be changed by the General Assembly as necessary after each United States decennial census.) So, if the Supreme Court of Georgia interpreted that provision the same way that the supreme courts of Colorado and New Hampshire intrepreted their provisions regarding Congressional elections, they would find that the ONLY time redistricting could be done is as necessary after the census. What's more, if the Court did rule that way, the federal case in Colorado would have no effect, because the U.S. Constitutional provision regarding Congressional elections would not come into play when dealing strictly with Georgia legislature elections. Such a finding would invalidate the recent rending of Athens in twain.

Now, what are the chances that the Supreme Court of Georgia will rule that way? Your guess is as good as mine. It would be a case of first impression as far as I know in Georgia, and the Court has some new personnel that I don't really have a good read on yet.

Sonny to Athens: Redistrict this, bitches!

Well, as you all know by now, Athens has been cleaved in twain.  Frankly, other than the timing of the Governor actually signing the bill (on which I totally screwed the pooch), it was more or less a forgone conclusion.  

Speaking of redistricting, in a semi-related story, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Texas redistricting case yesterday.  They’re probably not going to change anything though.  The Texas redistricting case stems from an unscheduled redistricting that took place after the requisite post-Census reapportionment – similar hijinks to what the GOP pulled in Georgia after they got their majority in 2002.  The Texas case arguments stem from two areas, first the usual argument that minority voting strength was diluted, and second, that redistricting anytime except after a Census is illegal.  Don’t expect that latter argument to gain much traction.  According to a Washington Post story today, the opinion of the Court seems to be that if you ban mid-decade redistricting, you have no recourse to undo partisan redistricting that did happen at the right time.  (Some would say that undoing previous partisan redistricting is exactly what the GOP did in 2002, and to be fair, they’re right.)

Anyway, the redistricting is off to the Department of Justice.  Given what happened with the much more egregiously bad Voter ID Law, you can expect DOJ to pass it without objections.

So, where do we go from here?  Here’s what your crack editorial staff thinks.    There are two strategies that people who are righteously pissed about splitting Athens, a long term approach and a short term approach should consider.  You’ve got to concentrate on both.

In the short term, it’s time to buckle down and get to work.  Give Jane Kidd some money – she may not be perfect, but she’s the best we’ve got.  If you can’t give money (hey, I’m poor too, I dig you), give of your time.  Go knock on some doors, make some calls for Jane Kidd.  Tell your neighbors and your friends.  Find a candidate to run against Hudgens and make this the issue.  Not redistricting, per se, but the fact that Hudgens thinks that Athens and the counties surrounding us are his own personal fiefdom.  

Now, in the long term, it gets more complicated than just finding a candidate and working for them.  That’s right, I’m about to start beating the drum for redistricting reform again, and I’ll tell you what, if you’re not rattling cages on redistricting reform, then don’t ever speak negatively about “politics as usual.”  It’s time to take the maps out of the greasy, sweaty hands of the professional politicians.  Stop letting the foxes guard the electoral henhouse.  We would suggest that any candidate (especially around Athens right now) who could explain why redistricting is corrupt and pledge to push for measures that will make it nonpartisan and apolitical, would do very well.  

Your thoughts on redistricting below.

Jane Kidd, lawsuits, yada yada yada

So, what do you guys think about Jane Kidd threatening to sue the state if they allow the redistricting to take place?  

To be honest with you, we don’t know what to make of the whole thing, but that’s never stopped us before.  So here are a few random musings.

First of all, whether or not you think a lawsuit is valid (we’ll get to that in a moment), we think that Jane Kidd is probably the wrong person to file this suit.  First of all, it’s going to be seen as political posturing, and it’s going to leave her open to be attacked on that front whether or not she is, in fact, posturing.  The GOP could well take the line that, instead of working for votes, she’s wasting her resources fighting the redistricting in court.  And, you know what?  There may be something to that argument.  There’s no doubt that Kidd may be being handed some electoral lemons here, but – well, you know the rest.  

Second point.  None of that stuff above necessarily means that no one should fight the redistricting in court – just not Jane Kidd.  But there have to be tons of advocacy groups just champing at the bit to get this one in a courtroom, right?

Which brings us to our third random musing.  Is there a case to be made here?  I don’t know from law (why do you think we keep DiDDY around?), but I’m not so sure that there’s a successful case here.  Perhaps our legal editor will kindly weigh in on this one and set me straight.

Also, as Hillary points out, if Sonny wants this thing to pass, he actually does have to sign it.  You see, in order to get this thing to DOJ for review, we’ve got to get it there before April 24.  Unfortunately, the 40 day window (in which any legislation unsigned by the Governor automatically becomes law) expires after April 24.  So, if Sonny doesn’t sign it, the bill doesn’t get to DOJ in time, and the whole redistricting is a moot point, at least for the 2006 cycle.  This is kind of interesting to us, since it effectively eliminates a lot of Sonny’s political cover.  According to the Governor’s camp, he still hasn’t made a decision.  We doubt that’s entirely true, but we also suggest that the Athens redistricting, as big an issue as it is here, is hardly on top of the Governor’s to-do list.  Rampant speculation on our part, but we’re guessing that the folks in Perdue’s office are really wishing that they could take a pass on this one – that would explain their hesitation.  We would speculate that he probably will sign the bill, in order to keep his allies under the Gold Dome off his case (and one thing you can say about Sonny Perdue is that he does take care of the folks who take care of him).  He’ll probably sign it at the last possible second he can, and try to get it out on a news cycle dump day (Fridays are good for that – ask the current White House press office) in order to minimize the fallout as much as possible.  Not that the fallout will be particularly overwhelming.  The ABH will bitch and moan, Pete McCommons will pen a clever and scathing column in Flagpole, and local blogs like us will raise holy hell for about a week.  None of that matters, because Sonny lost Athens by a significant margin and will probably do so again come the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2006.  

Finally, we would be remiss if we didn’t point out that as of now, Jane Kidd is only considering a lawsuit.  It ain’t a done deal.  We’d remind you that Kidd considered dropping out of the Senate race earlier and didn’t act on it – a good idea in our book.  So, we may be making much ado about nothing here.

So, to sum up.  Yeah, maybe somebody should fight it in court, although we’d rather it not be Jane Kidd, and we’re not sure how strong the case really is.  What do you think?

Related: Antidisingenousmentarianism: “Hobbyhorse” 02/28/06
              Athens Banner-Herald: “Kidd threatens suit over district plans” 02/28/06

Linky linky

New linky goodness to the right – in a sudden spurt of actual motivation, your crack editorial staff has linked to the five candidates for governor of the great state of Georgia.  You’ve also got a link to the politics1.com page for Georgia which has all the other statewide candidates.  We’ll put more up later.

Also in the linky goodness – two blogs that frequent contributor Patrick Armstrong runs – the Democracy for America: Coastal Empire Remix, and Hurricane Radio.  Just don’t forget to read AthPo too during all your blog cruising, bitches.

Satire, bitches

ATLANTA – Republicans in the General Assembly are gearing up for legislative action that will guarantee less state recognition and services for specific types of Georgia residents.

SB 3030, the “Getting Even With People We Don’t Like Omnibus Act,” targets gay evolutionist illegal immigrants who are opposed to oversized billboards featuring images of the Crucifixion and loudspeakers with looped recordings of Governor Sonny Perdue reading the Ten Commandments.  Gay evolutionist illegal immigrants who oppose Crucifixion billboards that play the Governor’s voice reading the Ten Commandments would be deprived of many state services, including driver’s licenses, health care, and public education.  They would also be charged an “oxygen fee” of $123.67 per liter of oxygen consumed in public areas.

“This is not an issue of discrimination,” said one Republican Senator who is backing the bill.  “These people are sucking up important state services from straight creationist Georgians who think gigantic religious billboards featuring the Governor reading Scripture are a pretty darn good idea.  And the oxygen user fee?  Give me a break!  It’s not like we’re charging them for breathing in their own homes, just public spaces where decent God-fearing Georgians need oxygen.”

One of the most controversial provisions of the new bill is a portion which also limits services available in the private sector.  If passed, gay evolutionist illegal immigrants will be unable to purchase movie tickets, high-octane gasoline, or DVDs featuring tractor pulls or ultimate cage fighting.  These provisions, however, only apply to gay evolutionist illegal immigrants, and the bill’s authors are quick to make that distinction.  “If you are not a gay evolutionist illegal immigrant who opposes ginormous billboards and the Governor reading Scripture, then your life will not be impacted,” said an aide to Governor Sonny Perdue.  “If you’re just gay, or just an illegal immigrant, then have no fear – we will merely continue to beat up on you in the ways you’re already familiar with.”  

Despite what some observers see as the overly draconian nature of the bill, supporters tout it as a model of efficiency.  “Sure, we could pass separate bills to persecute illegal immigrants, gays, evolutionists, and anyone liberal enough to support a wall between church and state,” said one Republican House member.  “But why would we?  This is a much better use of taxpayer dollars – we get ‘em all in one fell swoop.”

SB 3030 was introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee at 1:37 a.m. Sunday morning, and committee members passed it only six minutes later – causing some opponents to cry foul and allege that the unanimous 436 – 0 committee vote was fraudulent.  

“There was plenty of time for all Senators to examine the bill closely, and the text of the bill was debated very thoroughly,” said one of the bill’s co-sponsors.  “Plus we had to wait for the committee chair to get out of the bathroom.  Otherwise, I think we could have gotten this one out of committee in under a minute.”

Following tomorrow’s vote by the full Senate, SB 3030 will be voted on in the House, where it is expected to pass by a margin of three trillion to negative 6 votes.  The bill will then proceed to Governor Sonny Perdue’s desk for his signature or veto.

Repeated calls to Democratic state legislators were not returned.  An intern with the Democratic Party of Georgia told reporters that Democratic legislators had been, “out to lunch since November 2002.”

Watkinsville: Big Timin'

Courtesy of Watkinsville City Councilman Brian Brodick, we learn that the bucolic hamlet of Watkinsville, jewel of the OC, now has it's very own entry in the New Georgia Encyclopedia. According to Brodrick, it's an all-around good piece, although it fails to mention Watkinsville's renaissance as an arts community, and implies that the local economy is still agriculture-based.

By the way, this is a good time to plug the NGE. If you don't know about it, it is your go-to online reference for all things Georgia.

Related: New Georgia Encyclopedia: "Watkinsville"
New Georgia Encylopedia Homepage

Democrats: Try being a little less vigil-ant

Ok, so like any good liberal, I'm on the MoveOn.org email list. Because I am, I got invited to a series of "Constitutional Vigils" held yesterday in protest of the illegal wiretapping being conducted by the administration. Apparently, MoveOn members "from Charleston, South Carolina to Missoula, Montana" got together to mourn the murder of the Constitution at the hands of the Bush administration.

Are you f***ing kidding me? This, this right here, is why folks like DawgCorleone can't take us seriously. A vigil? Jeeeezus.

Look, I'm as opposed to this wiretapping thing as anybody; we've already had that discussion and everybody knows where I stand. But a vigil? Do you honestly expect that to make one iota of difference in anybody's mind that doesn't already agree with you? Can it do anything but make liberals look silly and clueless?

Do me a favor, MoveOn and other vigil-goers, if you really care about this and other liberal issues: get in the damn game. Get off your ass and get some Ds elected. Raise some money. Elect a D as President next time. This and only this will change any of it.

Now, in fairness to MoveOn, they are doing some of those things too, or at least trying to. But it's enough already with the vigils. They only hurt your other efforts. Seriously. Stop it. I mean it.

Boobs n Stuff a Trois

Argentine Playboy playmate Dorismar has been deported along with her husband back to Argentina after having lived illegally in Miami for five years. A crackdown on illegal immigration is all fine and good, but damnit people, let's keep the hot ones! Am I wrong?

Meet the Daily Douchebag

Here’s a new Athens blogger for you guys to check out.  AthPo friend GP has decided to join the blogging fun by putting out The Daily Douchebag.  Link in this post and to the right.

Enjoy.

Roundup/Open Thread

Here’s what’s going on today:

Barrow and Vets agree:
Being a veteran kind of sucks, if you’re sick.  

SOS Candidate in town tomorrow:
Talking to the Clarke County Democrats, who are apparently hosting a fundraiser for Cathy Cox.  We wonder if there’s one in the works for Mark Taylor as well…  Nonetheless, go see Scott Holcomb.  If you were running for Secretary of State, he’d come listen to you.  (6 pm tomorrow, Clarke County Courthouse)

Just give it up already:
No matter which side you’re on, La Puerta del Sol is a done deal.  Opponents and proponents, please, I implore you – no need to keep this stuff stirred up in the papers when we have fraternities to persecute and traffic to calm.

Bars on crack (down):
As we were discussing recently, folks want to blame the “Athens Underage Drankin’ Epidemic” ™ on everyone and everything except – gosh, we don’t know – the underage kids who go out and get boozy.  We’re pragmatic, but cracking down on bars and liquor stores is not going to even make a dent in the “problem,” such as it is.  Hell, these students were smart enough to get into UGA, we’re guessing they’re smart enough to find someone to buy booze for them too.  Today in the ABH, letter writers want to blame the bars (see our recent post on drankin’ for why that’s less than correct), and the ABH itself for decrying underage drinking on the opinions page while showing a grown man, of legal age, drinking champagne on the sports page.  How dare they?  It’s all your fault, ABH!  You’re what’s wrong with our community.  Next step, Winders is indicted for Lewis Fish’s death while Jim Thompson turns state’s evidence.

Open Thread:
Do with it as you will.  

National Politics: Barrow, Veterans, and Labor

Your Congressman and mine, John Barrow, will be hanging out in Athens this afternoon.  Barrow will be kicking it with vets at the local VFW post on Sunset Dr. at 5:30 pm.  Tomorrow, Barrow heads south, to talk to vets in Waynesboro, Sylvania, Louisville and other towns.  

Y’all might recall the folks here at AthPo giving Barrow a little love some months ago for a bill he introduced to raise the mileage rate for vets who have to go to VA hospitals for treatments.  He’s probably going to talk a little about concurrent benefits, which is the golden goose of veterans policy.  

Anyhoo, as much as we bitch about Barrow for getting cozy with the NRA, voting for the Patriot Act, etc., he’s been a stand up guy on veterans’ issues.  It’s the right thing for the country, especially when you’ve got an administration that consistently cuts funding for the VA and other veterans’ benefits.  It’s also a smart move politically, given the large number of vets who live in the 12th District.  

Speaking of Barrow, I caught a little of him on the radio this morning.  He said some good things about the minimum wage, but he was a little vague on the whole having folks from the United Arab Emirates in charge of US port operations thing (he’s agin it).

Maybe the most interesting thing that Barrow said that I heard this morning, was in reference to the UAE port operations thing.  Tim Bryant mentioned that some folks are saying that Democrats are opposing this because the unions are pissed off about losing their high-paying port jobs.  

Said Barrow, “I don’t care what the unions think.”  

Hooboy.  Harsh words from JB, considering his hardcore kowtowing to the unions in 2004.  And we sort of speculate that, in retrospect, he’d kind of like to have that sound bite back.  It seemed that Barrow was a little flustered by Bryant, and not completely briefed on the whole port issue.  He might have engaged his mouth before his political instincts got into gear.  

Still, John Barrow could walk out and spit on Jimmy Hoffa’s grave (wherever that might be) without the unions getting mad at him.  The union leadership, politically impotent and toothless, just wants friends.  Of course, while the union leadership, especially in Georgia, is pretty bloated and corrupt, there are a lot of rank and file union members who actually care about labor, not about their own political agendas.  They might be a little irritated.  

Coming at some nebulous later date, we’ll talk about the sorry state of labor unions in the South, in Georgia, and across the country, why the labor movement is a good thing, spoiled by some bad folks at the top, and why labor has no juice anymore.  Feel free to get started on that below, if you’d like.

Drankin'

I was driving around today and listening to WGAU during the 9:00 hour.  The subject was drinking, which as we all know, has become the issue du jour in the last few weeks.  Host Elizabeth Dalton had a bevy of current UGA students on the show, and I’ve got to tell you folks, it’s really interesting to see how this issue has evolved, even over the last few weeks.

Right now, playing the blame game is all the rage.  Some folks in the UGA administration are blaming the local government for a lack of enforcement downtown.  Folks in the community are blaming UGA for not keeping their students under control, whatever that means.  People all over the place are blaming the bar owners downtown for serving underage drinkers – a position that is ridiculous, and probably exaggerated.  

Problem is, no one is blaming the people who are actually at fault: immature, irresponsible college students.  The University of Georgia is not these students’ mommy or daddy.  Society presumes that if you make it through four years of high school and jump through the necessary hoops to get to college, then you’re supposed to be a reasonable, rational adult.  

The local government could do more for enforcement, to be sure.  But ask yourself this: Would you rather focus the limited resources of the ACCPD on keeping 18-year-olds from getting into the Allgood, or would you rather the men and women in blue be out on the streets keeping them from driving home drunk?  Perhaps (heaven forbid) the cops could even be doing something about the growing gang problem in ACC?  

And what about the bars?  Well, to put the bar owners on the gallows for serving underage drinkers is popular, but remember the first rule of economics.  Businesses enter the marketplace to increase profit.  Business owners may have a social conscience – many in fact do – but businesses themselves operate for profit.  It’s capitalism, and if you don’t like it, then move to North Korea.  

You want to make it harder for bar owners to serve the under-21 set?  Put more cops undercover and start handing out more fines.  Of course, if you do, then be prepared to sacrifice enforcement in other areas, like DUI.  

Even if you closed down every bar in Athens, you would still have incidents like the recent one with Lewis Fish.  If an 18-year-old wants to drink, he or she is going to find a way to drink, probably through the assistance of a friend who is legal.  

That same argument goes for every other straw man that gets thrown up for us to beat on.  The ACCPD could put every officer they’ve got at the door of every bar and liquor store in town and check the ID of every person who wants to walk through the doors.  It wouldn’t matter – you’d still have drunk 18-year-olds, and occasionally one of them will drink to excess and die.

The problem is not bar owners, or the local government, or the University.  It’s social, it’s cultural, and it isn’t going to change overnight.  It’s immature kids, a few months out of high school, on their own for the first time, and feeling invincible.  

So, when someone can come up with real solutions to the drankin’ problem, we’ll be more than happy to listen.  But until they do, we’re going to continue to write the “problem” off to a fundamental lack of personal responsibility, and something that isn’t going to change anytime soon.  And we’re going to keep saying, perhaps too bluntly, that everybody involved needs to grow up – including the Chicken Littles who think the alcoholic sky is falling in ACC.

DA Turmoil Part II

Last week, the ABH ran an editorial about the problems in the DA's office, something we reported on about a month ago. The criticisms in the editorial have been echoed to us by sources in the local legal community. The consensus seems to be that Mr. Mauldin is a fine lawyer and prosecutor, but no so much with the administrative/managerial duties inherent in the job. That's unfortunate, since those duties are at least as important, if not more so, than the others. Generally speaking, only the most complex and high profile cases actually get tried by the DA himself, whereas managing the office is an everyday job and affects every case. I hope that Mr. Mauldin isn't micromanaging us out of an effective criminal justice system, but that's exactly what his critics suggest may be happening.

In a related story, Matt Karzen, the former chief assistant DA who is one of the three prosecutors who have left the office since Jan. 13, is apparently going to open up his own office here in town.