This is the first I've read about the DCOC, but I urge everyone to check out www.dcvote.org as well to support voting rights for the District of Columbia. Thanks to King for publicizing a major injustice.

Washington is a Democratic city, so as a tradeoff for Republicans, Utah would get a new at-large representative.

Excuse me? How does this aid the people of Washington DC in being represented if we're just going to over-represent the people of Utah?

Can we please reach an agreement on what constitutes a "country?"

Puerto Rico is clearly not a country, yet it fields teams for the Olympics, World Cup, and now the World Baseball thingy. The WBC organizers at least officially have the self-resepect to refer to the island as a commonwealth, even if the event is marketed as involving 16 countries. So an expansive definition of country is being used. OK, fine.

So can someone please explain why Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland are called countries for World Cup participation but not for the Olympics? They team up with England for team "Great Britain." Of course GB is an island, the UK a country and Northern Ireland is not even on GB. So that's just messed-up all around.

Can we get a ruling here?

If you're interested in curling, there is a fun little movie called "Men with Brooms" about a team of Canadian curlers. There's some good curling action in the movie (they explain the rules!) and it's just a good story.

Tough to break through the noise with that one, no matter how clever the release, sent by Bruce Kaufman, the self-proclaimed "Mr. Mow It All" and no relation to me.

so your given name would be king mow it all, then? why deny your landscaping heritage by changing it to kaufman? ;)

"Washington is a Democratic city, so as a tradeoff for Republicans, Utah would get a new at-large representative."

Excuse me? How does this aid the people of Washington DC in being represented if we're just going to over-represent the people of Utah?

As I understand it, Utah came very close to the necessary population to have a fourth seat in the last census. So it wouldn't be over-representation, or at least not by much. How it helps Washington D.C. residents is they're not going to get any House Republicans to vote for a seat for D.C., which would be Democratic, unless there's an extra Republican seat to balance it out.

I would say D.C. residents are better served by 1 D.C. rep and 4 Utah reps in the House than they are by 0 D.C. reps and 3 Utah reps.

To expand on the earlier answer to Dan: under this scenario, Utah would not be over represented becuase the House would be expanded to 437 seats from the current 435. Under the current formula for apportioning House seats, Utah gets 3 out of 435. If we add DC to the list of entities that get apportioned seats, and expand the number of house seats to 437, then (again using the current formula) Utah would properly get 4 seats and DC 1 (out of 437). Make sense?

I wonder if the Republicans would really be willing to accept the quite temporary additional Utah seat -- after all, would go back to 435 after the next census, but that DC Democratic seat would be there forever. Maybe they're assuming that Red states will pick up more Represenattivs after the next census.

I have a hard time seeing how this law would pass constitutional muster, though, honestly. The constitution says rather explicitly that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." DC not being one of the several states, the law seems pretty at odds with that. I definitely think DC should have a representative (and senators too), but I think that would require an amendment -- or, better, DC statehood.

jf

To me that PR firm's "about" page seems to state a simple truth worthy of a bumper sticker: The Right Fools the Right People. That's how the party of Lincoln gets around Lincoln's Rule of Fooling the People.

speaking as a Canadian (who has dabbled in curling in the past), I'm surprised you characterised curlers as "sensitive". I think curlers can be passionate, of course, but rarely have I met or seen any that I would describe as sensitive. In my experience, curlers are pretty mellow and have a great sense of humour about their beloved "sport". Your unfair characterisation has wounded my sensitive pride.

Sensitively yours,

You know the post about the pseudonym made me think of a problem: I don't know how to refer to you here in the letters section. A message board is sort of uncharted territory as far as ettiquette goes. "King" sounds too informal, "Mr. Kaufman" too formal. "Your highness" makes it seem that I'm calling you high and mighty. "Your excellency", perhaps??

Growing up in reach of CBC Windsor's signal, I too have fallen victim to the curling spell.

As a good Canadian boy, I understand your fascination with curling. Unfortunately, it captivates you but once every four years during the Olympics. I catch it every spring during the Brier. It used to be the Labatt's Brier, then for a time the Nokia Brier. Now it is the Tim Hortons Brier, sponsored by that most quintissentially Canadian institution, Tim Hortons Donuts. The quality of of the tournament surpasses what you will get in the next 2 weeks during the Olympics. If you can tune into it below the 49th, you should try and get it. There is a whole wonderful lexicon unique to curling (peels and rolls draws and stuff -- I live here and don't know what half of it means) that I am sure you could embrace.

I was confused however by the last line of your curling column where you opined that there must be a solid 12 somewhere in Washington who could throw stones for DC. An Olympic curling side is a 4 man (or woman) team. Sure, most sides send an alternate, but failing a case of the bird flu, the alternate is just another fan. A coach could make for a 6th man/woman, but I can't get it up to 12 no matter how hard I try.