Thursday, November 17, 2005

2nd Ave Subway to get funding

Yesterday's New York Times brought news of money allocations toward the 2nd Avenue Subway by the New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority:

The New York Times
November 16, 2005
Transit Agency Authorizes Funds for 2nd Avenue Line
By SEWELL CHAN

After months of uncertainty about the pace and progress of the Second Avenue subway, a project that seems to be forever on the drawing board, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority intends today to authorize spending $150.4 million for the final design of a first segment, from East 96th to East 63rd Streets.

To be sure, the amount is but a fraction of the estimated $3.8 billion cost of the 2.2-mile segment, which is not projected to be completed until 2012 at the earliest. The entire 8.5-mile line would extend from 125th Street and Lexington Avenue in Harlem to Hanover Square in Lower Manhattan and cost $16.8 billion.

Still, the decision is the biggest financial affirmation of the authority's support for the project since November 2001, when its board awarded a $200.5 million contract to two engineering companies - Arup, a British company, and the DMJM Harris unit of Aecom - for preliminary engineering and design.

The move comes in the week after New York State voters approved a $2.9 billion transportation bond act that provided $450 million for the Second Avenue subway. The next step for the authority is to approach the Federal Transit Administration for an agreement that would secure support for the project. The authority wants the agency, part of the United States Department of Transportation, to pay about one-third of the total cost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/nyregion/16mta.html

The article continues with a brief history of the 2nd Ave subway:

A subway line under Second Avenue has been an unfulfilled wish since 1929, when it was proposed as a replacement for the Second and Third Avenue elevated lines, which were later demolished. State voters have approved new debt to support the project before, in 1951 and 1967, and tunneling began in 1972. It was halted a few years later by the fiscal crisis.

The project's latest incarnation began in 2000, when the authority pledged $1.05 billion to revive the effort. Planners believe the new line would relieve congestion on the Nos. 4, 5 and 6 lines, which run under Lexington Avenue and are among the most crowded in the system.

To complete the first segment by 2012, the authority will have to move quickly. Officials said yesterday that they hope to award actual construction work by the end of next year - even though the final design could take until 2008 to complete. The biggest task is boring a two-track tunnel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/nyregion/16mta.html

It should be noted that the site NYCsubway.org has a detailed page on the history of the 2nd Avenue Subway that goes into far greater detail.

Here's hoping this year's bond doesn't go the way of 1951 and 1967...

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Browns 21 at Steelers 34*

Nearing the half, Steelers up 10-7, driving, despite having a touchdown disallowed on replay.

Charlie Batch scores on a Quarterback sneak with 0:06 left in the 1st half to make it 17-7 steelers, moments after Hines Ward was ruled down on the 1 inch line with the clock running and the Steelers out of time-outs.

First drive of the 3rd quarter features Tommy Maddox under center. Completed an early pass for a first down, then Randle El throws a 51-yard touchdown to Hines Ward on an end-around play, and just that quickly the score is 24-7 Steelers.

Browns get the ball, and Dilfer throws a long pass, complete, but the receiver is hit after one step, and fumbles the ball, and it is returned to the Cleveland 20 yard line. Steelers would get a field goal after two incomplete passes from the 15.

The near last gasp for the BRownies with 12 to go in the game sees the browns throw incomplete on four straight downs from the Steeler 30, turning the ball over on downs.

With four minutes to go, the Steelers attempted a field goal to go up 30-7, but it was blocked an run back for a TD by Cleveland, score 27-14. Cleveland attempts an onside kick, that Cedric Wilson for the steelers recovers at the Browns 29. That drive finishes off with a 10 yard TD run by Verron Haynes just after the two-minute warning, score now 34-14. Steelers kick deep, but the Browns make up lots of yards on a long reception that Troy Polamalu just missed picking off. All told, the Browns score on 4th down with 21 seconds to go, making it 34-21 Steelers. Browns once again attempt an onside kick, but it goes out of bounds untouched. Cowher doesnt rub it in, but simply downs the ball and runs out the clock to take the win to the house.

The night was one for the Ages for Hines Ward, who passed John Stallworth for the top spot on the Steelers all-time reception list.

The win improves the Steelers to 7-2, and in first place in the AFC North on head-to-head tiebreaker on division foe 7-2 Cincinnati.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Election Day in Virginia

This is an experimental (as I have time) entry to be updated throughout the day on the Election in Virginia.

Up are three statewide offices: Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General. Also up is the entire House of Delegates.

The polling has been volatile (as RCP has kept track of), but the race is neck and neck, within the margin of error in all the polling. Survey USA thought they were trending Kaine, as they had him +9 on Sunday, but only +5 on Monday, with things trending Kilgore. Their methodology was suspect, given that they polled on a big football night (Va Tech-Miami) on Saturday and again on Sunday (Redskins-Eagles), making the internals completely off, thinking that Kaine was winning the rural vote and leading amongst conservatives. Then you find out of the 1200 polled, only 600 were "likely voters" in their mind... And Survey USA has finally realized they screwed up.

House of Delegates member, and blogger on Commonwealth Conservative, Chad Dotson examined this late last night over on Redstate, coupled with his predictions in the races yesterday on redstate gives hope and reason that Kilgore will prevail.

QUOTE(SurveyUSA correction)
UNUSUAL VOLATILITY IN VA AS VOTERS GO TO BED ON ELECTION EVE: Interviews in the Virginia governor's race conducted by SurveyUSA tonight Monday 11/7 (but before President Bush appeared in Richmond) show a swing back towards Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore, causing SurveyUSA to now update its final projection in the Virginia Governor's Contest. This morning, based on interviews conducted Friday, Saturday and Sunday (11/4/05 through 11/6/05), SurveyUSA released data that showed Democrat Tim Kaine 9 points ahead of Kilgore. However, because of intra-day volatility in that data, SurveyUSA continued to poll throughout the afternoon and evening today Monday 11/7. When interviews from the most recent 3 days -- Saturday, Sunday and today Monday -- are averaged, Kaine's lead shrinks now to 5 points. When interviews from just the past two days -- Sunday and today Monday -- are averaged, the contest is closer yet. When interviews from Monday only are considered, the contest is tied, but the Margin of Sampling error from just the one day of interviewing is high enough, and the results aberrant enough, that SurveyUSA is uncomfortable reporting just Monday-only data. For the record, SurveyUSA goes into the clubhouse with its final projection (based on Saturday, Sunday and Monday polling): Kaine 50%, Kilgore 45%. A closer outcome still is possible.


It should be noted that Bush drew 7000+ (many more were turned away) in the largest rally in statewide office history in Virginia last night...

UPDATE: 11pm

WOW. Kilgore loses by 5 points, but the GOP candidates for Lt. Governor and Attorney General win...
by 2 points and 0.25 points respectively.

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Fake TV Debates with real news logos

NBC did it this time, running its "West Wing" program live tonight, featuring a presidential debate "moderated" by their newsman Forest Sawyer. Alan Alda (certainly not a conservative activist by any means) was tasked with being the conservative republican candidate, while Jimmy Smits was tasked as the Dem candidate.

Alda did a remarkably good job, but one has to guess it was scripted, and he was simply memorizing lines, as opposed to him speaking from the heart.

And NBC's website, where they want the audience to go vote on who was the "winner" of the debate gives an error if you select Alda's character...

http://www.nbc.com/The_West_Wing/Campaign/

I did not see the whole thing, only the last 20 minutes. The script was set up to make the republican candidate look bad, at one point with the Dem candidate trying to frame it up by "taking a pledge not to go to war over oil" with the Alda character unwilling to make such a foolish pledge, likening it as useless of promising not to "go to war over sugar". Smits Character attempted to pose the question of whether the "country was ready for a latino president" as opposed to running on qualifications.

Alda's character's overarching theme was open-market solutions rather than government, while the Dem was feel-good Clintonesque attacks. One has to wonder how many of the audience believed it really was on "NBC News Live" as the logo in the bottom right of the screen showed...

Friday, November 04, 2005

Needless delay until 2006

(Extended from Altio thread in PDT's forums)

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled its hearings on the Alito nomination for January 2006, yes you heard right, January, or more than 10 weeks past the nomination date, or far longer than the five weeks that had been scheduled for Miers, so reports the AP.

There is no reason, given Alito's history, record, and prior vetting, that the Judiciary commitee could not have begun hearings on 11-7 when originally scheduled for Miers. The Dems were behind this, I'm sure, hoping to get a case or two decided by O'Connor before Alito receives his commission and takes his oaths.

Shame on Arlen Specter for allowing the Shenanigans. A post over on Redstate's Redhot section notes that this gap will have been the longest since Bork in 1987:
QUOTE(Blanton@Redstate)
That will be when hearings begin on Sam Alito. This is another failure of leadership on Bill Frist's part. Not since Robert Bork has there been so much time between nomination and hearings. This will mean there is ample time for the left to get its anti-Alito operations in gear and sabotage the nomination
http://www.redstate.org/redhot_history/4526/#4526

Blanton has it right, Frist's inability to keep Specter in line, and the caucus together as a whole on judges has been his undoing. And I am not sure, save a Santorum or McConnell, if there is a real leader in the GOP senate caucus for when Frist retires.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Crosby named NHL rookie of the month (October)

Pittsburgh rookie center Sidney Crosby has been named NHL Rookie of the Month for the month of October, going 2+12 for 14 points in 11 games.
NHL Press release: http://www.nhl.com/news/2005/11/241566.html

In other news, 2003 first overall pick Marc-Andre Fleury was named the AHL goalie of the month for October: http://www.pittsburghpenguins.com/team/press/arts/1442.0.php

9th Circus at it again: Parents have no right...

As Howard Bashman of Howappealing summarizes in FIELDS v. PALMDALE SCHOOL DIST:

QUOTE(Howard Bashman)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds that "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it." Today's ruling from a unanimous three-judge panel was written by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt in a case involving elementary school students. The final paragraph of Judge Reinhardt's opinion states:

QUOTE(9th Circuit in FIELDS v. PALMDALE SCHOOL DIST)
In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs" and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right. In doing so, we do not quarrel with the parents' right to inform and advise their children about the subject of sex as they see fit. We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select. We further hold that a psychological survey is a reasonable state action pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state. Accordingly, the parent-appellants have failed to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted. The decision of the district court is affirmed.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinion...pdf?openelement
http://legalaffairs.org/howappealing/110205.html#007598


While it appears on its face that the ruling is based on standing, and not on the underlying question, the net effect is the ruling will be taken as limiting parental rights. It is listed as being a 3-judge panal of the 9th circuit, but only two of the judges were 9th circuit judges, as the third was a senior judge from the 8th circuit.

Erick at Redstate has a post on the ruling tonight:

QUOTE(Erick@Redstate)
Interestingly, while the court ruled that parents have no "right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which children might be exposed," the public schools, according to the Ninth Circuit, can only expose children to sex. Exposing children to prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance would indoctrinate the children unfairly.

As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents -- who should be the the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex. As Neodanite said, if the town pervert had grilled the seven year olds on masturbation, it would have been a crime. In the same way, I can hardly imagine the Ninth Circuit upholding a law that would give parents the exclusive right to education their children about sex. And that is just not right.
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/11/2/22125/7274

Erick goes deeper, by examining some of the questions posed to 7-year olds about sex in a psychological survey. The plantiffs in the case, the parents, are ticked off that the true nature of the survey was not disclosed upfront, as they would not have given their consent had they known the true nature of the survey:

QUOTE(Erick@Redstate)
The School District sent a note home to parents asking for parental consent to engage their children in a survey of early trauma. The survey was prepared by Kristi Seymour, a volunteer "mental health counselor" at Mesquite Elementary School while she was enrolled in a master's degree program at the California School of Professional Psychology. The School District, collaborating with the School of Psychology and Seymour, developed and administered the questionnaire to first, third, and fifth grade students. While parents were informed that the survey would cover "baseline . . . exposure to early trauma (for example, violence)," it specifically did not mention sex.


A wee bit over the line in my book. The School District should be ashamed of themselves for such a stunt, but this is California we are talking about -- it's been a long time since Reagan was Governor out there.

QUOTE(9th Circuit opinion)
When parents of schoolchildren in Palmdale, California learned from their sons and daughters that they had been questioned in their public elementary school about sexual topics such as the frequency of “thinking about having sex” and “thinking about touching other peoples’ private parts,” some of them exercised their constitutional right to take their grievance to the courts. The questioning was part of a survey the Palmdale School District was conducting regarding psychological barriers to learning. The parents brought an action in district court against the School District and two of its officials for violating their right to privacy and their right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex.” They brought both federal and state claims. The district court dismissed the federal causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the state claims without prejudice to their right to re-file in state court. We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants’ actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinion...pdf?openelement

When a closer read is taken of this opening paragraph of the opinion, it appears they have determined far more than standing. I would hardly agree that misleading parents into consenting for something they would otherwise not consent to is a "legitimate state purpose". Small consolation that the plantiffs have leave to re-file in state court...