Nov 072011
 

Yesterday was a day of delightful meditation on the holy Ellipsoid Orb.  I’m current on replies.  Today I have housework and volunteer paperwork to do.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today it took me 3:47 (average 4:34).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Religious Ecstasy:

1111-Broncos38-Raiders24

Beating Oakland in Oakland is especially sweet!

Short Takes:

From Village Voice: Stand down, Zuccotti protesters, the banks have heard your calls for reform and are yielding to your demands. The majority of the country has been enveloped in financial turmoil, and one of the big banks is finally taking steps to institute change: Wells Fargo is creating a boutique bank for the super rich. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the wealth management unit will be named "Abbot Downing" and will only service families with more than $50 million in their coffers. Rumor has it, when you open an account you get free Looney Tunes checks.

Absolutely obscene flaunting of wealth.  I wonder if they’ll have a special zone at their ATMs for robbers to line up. 😉

From Haaretz: The Israeli government denied on Sunday that a cyber-attack was the reason several websites went down, including those of the IDF, Mossad, Shin Bet security service and government ministries. IDF spokesman said there was most likely a malfunction with the servers.

Given that they had received anonymous threats of retribution, if they boarded the relief ships, I consider it probable that Israel’s government is lying.

From Common Dreams: Thousands of protesters, including a Nobel laureate and a film star, are slated to join hands and encircle the White House on Sunday in opposition to TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline.

The demonstration is the latest in a series of White House protests aimed at convincing U.S. President Barack Obama to block the $7 billion project that would carry Alberta oilsands crude through six American states to Gulf Coast refineries.

I am fully support the protesters against the Keystone XL pipeline.

Cartoon:

7Cartoon

Share
Nov 062011
 

I have long said that we need to change the Senate rules  At the last easy opportunity to do so, the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, humped the GOP leg before rolling over and playing dead, deciding on a “gentlemen’s agreement” with Republicans instead of a floor vote to change the rules.  Gentlemen’s agreements have no effect when made with those who are not gentlemen.  The Republicans abided by the “gentlemen’s agreement” almost long enough for Reid to announce it.  Jeff Merkley (D-OR), for whose campaign I am proud to have been a volunteer, agrees that the rules of the Senate must be changed.

6breakingthefilibuster

…At no time did our Founders envision that the Senate would require a supermajority to pass legislation. Indeed, the Constitution requires a supermajority only for very limited purposes, including the ratification of treaties and the override of a presidential veto.

Nor did the early Senate adopt any supermajority requirements by rule. Senators extended the courtesy of extensive debate as a basic principle of deliberation, but they passed all legislation by simple majorities.

While some were tempted to talk a bill to death by not agreeing to a final vote, this temptation was moderated by working relations — historically, the Senate had many fewer members than it does today — a deep commitment to the principle of majority rule, and the prospect that if individuals were to abuse the process, the Senate could respond by adopting a rule change with a simple majority.

Many Founders saw the possibility of a supermajority requirement for passing bills as destructive, inappropriately subjugating the wisdom of the many to the wisdom of the few. Alexander Hamilton observed in the Federalist papers that a supermajority requirement has a “tendency to embarrass the operations of government” and would generate “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.” This characterization matches how many Americans perceive the Senate today.

The duality of extended debate and majority decision-making was seriously tested throughout the 1800s, but it wasn’t until 1917 that the Senate adopted a rule for formally ending debate.

To counter the possibility that a few would seek to win through obstruction what they could not win through persuasion, the Senate agreed that debate could be ended by a supermajority vote. This process, known as “invoking cloture,” initially required a two-thirds majority. That was later changed to three-fifths. Moreover, rule changes were now subjected to a supermajority threshold, eliminating a significant deterrent to abuse of the process.

This new cloture rule was rarely exercised. Between 1917 and 1960, a cloture motion was filed only 30 times.

6MerkleyOver the past 50 years, however, the Senate’s deliberative social contract has unraveled. After Southern Democrats seized on supermajority obstruction to block voting rights legislation, senators started employing the tactic broadly. The number of cloture votes grew from 26 in the 1960s to 136 in the 1980s to 367 in the past decade. The constitutional and historical norm of decision-making by simple majority has been replaced by a routine requirement to assemble a supermajority of 60.

As predicted by Hamilton, this super­majority barrier has fueled the politics of paralysis. Getting anything done in the Senate is like wading through knee-deep molasses. The difference between today and the Senate of the 1970s, when I was an intern for Sen. Mark Hatfield, is stark. A Senate that routinely debated amendments from both sides and decided almost all issues by simple majority is gone.

Now, united minority caucuses, backed by powerful interest groups, seek to use the supermajority requirement to block action and discredit the majority.

The resulting paralysis and partisanship hurt our nation. They are probably the largest element behind the low opinion of the Senate. Our citizens expect more. The Senate must be able to respond to the major challenges of our time, including creating jobs and reducing the debt.

That is why Sens. Tom Udall, Tom Harkin and I, among others, fought to change the Senate rules in January. One key change would have created a protocol for amendments so that both minority and majority amendments could be debated.

Another key provision was to replace the “silent filibuster,” in which a single senator can block a simple-majority vote on an amendment or bill, with the “talking filibuster” — requiring those who wish to block final action to make their case on the floor, before their colleagues and the American people.

This would force those senators holding up a bill to defend their obstruction and let the public decide whether they are heroes or bums. And by requiring senators to invest time and energy, it would strip away a large number of the frivolous filibusters… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Jeff did a wonderful job explaining the history of and need to change the Senate rules for supermajority, but glossed over what his proposal would have actually done, other that requiring the debate of minority amendments.  Instead if requiring the majority to have 60 votes to invoke cloture, it would require the minority to have 41 votes to block cloture, and keep those 41 votes in the chamber continuously.  I would add to that a one week maximum delay before a majority vote must be called.

As for Harry Reid, if Democrats can keep the Senate in 2012, we need a Majority Leader with the spunk to go toe to toe with Republicans, not hump their legs, roll over, and play dead.  Perhaps one of you, who are skilled in the art of shepherding petitions, which I am not, might want to put one together to that effect. to launch after the first of the year.  I would suggest Bernie Sanders.

Share

Koch Suckers: Defund the EPA!

 Posted by at 12:01 am  Politics
Nov 062011
 

While the Obama Administration seems to be giving the environment back seat to jobs creation, Republican environmental policy is a complete disaster.  Under normal circumstances, they couch their position in lies, claiming that they are “protecting” the EPA by gutting it, but when they are actively sucking Koch, some actually tell the truth about their intent, probably forgetting that someone else is listening.

6epaThe Koch brothers and the foundation they fund, Americans for Prosperity, are among the biggest backers of the right’s anti-environment movement, pushing for the repeal of environmental laws and regulations on both the state and federal level. Those efforts continued at AFP’s annual Defending the American Dream Summit this weekend, as attacks on the EPA came from seemingly every prominent speaker and in multiple panels.

Former pizza magnate Herman Cain (R) drew some of his largest cheers when he declared that the EPA “needs an attitude adjustment,” while former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) decried the burden of federal regulations on job creation. But while Romney has insisted in the past that Republicans aren’t “anti-regulation” and other conservatives have insisted that the party doesn’t want to defund the EPA, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) — the Congressman from Koch — made it clear during an environmental panel that that was exactly his goal…

…Watch it:

 

Pompeo is hardly the only Republican to state plainly that defunding the EPA is one of the GOP’s primary goals. In July, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) said the EPA “would be discontinued” if the GOP gained control of the Senate and the White House… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

If Republicans have their way, views like the one pictured above will become a distant memory.  The alternative to voting them out is global catastrophe.

Share
Nov 062011
 

Yesterday was a lazy day.  I did a little housework and did some extra research.  I’m current with replies.  Today is a holy day in the Church of the Ellipsoid Orb.  The prayer meeting between my Broncos and the Oakland congregation will be televised here, so I shall be deep in meditation.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today it took me 4:08 (average 5:08).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From NY Times: Andy Rooney, whose prickly wit was long a mainstay of CBS News and whose homespun commentary on “60 Minutes,” delivered every week from 1978 until 2011, made him a household name, died on Friday in New York City.

He was 92 and lived in Manhattan, though he kept a family vacation home in Rensselaerville, N.Y.

While I was never a fan of his, as I preferred hard news to infotainment, he made a mark on the industry.  Condolences to all who loved him.

From Huffington Post: Protesters marched on the Walter E. Washington Convention Center on Friday evening where Americans for Prosperity, a conservative organization funded in part by the Koch brothers, was assembled for its Defending The American Dream Summit and Ronald Reagan tribute dinner.

During the dinner, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said "I am proud to know the Koch brothers," according to The New York Times.

Bravo!  Nobody is more emblematic of the 1%.

From Raw Story: Bill Maher: Republicans should nominate Tom Tebow.

 

Bill is funny, even if he is picking on my team’s QB. 🙁

Cartoon:

6Cartoon

Share
Nov 052011
 

To the delight of giant corporations these days, the deck is stacked in their favor, and the Republican Party is doing everything they can to stack the deck even further.  Republicans want to lower their taxes, protect their subsidies, and allow them to run hog wild, unrestrained by regulations to protect consumers from their predation.  For the rest of us, Republicans are sabotaging the economy.  Lets see how stacked the deck is and how Republicans are hurting the 99%.

5StackedDeckIf you needed evidence that corporate tax rates are far too low and large corporations receive far too many tax benefits, look no further than the new study just published by Citizens for Tax Justice.

CTJ undertook a study of the 280 largest companies in the United States to see what they actually paid (or didn’t pay) in taxes. From their press release:

These 280 corporations received a total of nearly $224 billion in tax subsidies,” said Robert McIntyre, Director at Citizens for Tax Justice and the report’s lead author. “This is wasted money that could have gone to protect Medicare, create jobs and cut the deficit.”

30 Companies average less than zero tax bill in the last three Years, 78 had at least one no-tax year.

Financial services received the largest share of all federal tax subsidies over the last three years. More than half the tax subsidies for companies in the study went to four industries: financial services, utilities, telecommunications, and oil, gas & pipelines. 

U.S. corporations with significant foreign profits paid tax rates to foreign countries that were almost a third higher than they paid to the IRS on their domestic profits.

That $224 billion number is really significant. If we were to extrapolate that into a ten-year number to compare with CBO analyses of various revenue proposals, it would be an expenditure of about $750 billion over a ten-year period. Imagine that. We wouldn’t have to worry about Medicare cuts or deep cuts to discretionary spending if those tax preferences were rolled back… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

I encourage you to click through to the rest of this story.

At the same time Republicans are sabotaging our economy, both by obstructing demand stimulus on the national level and by forcing our government workers, teachers, police and firefighters into the ranks of the unemployed, thereby shedding public sector jobs to offset private sector job growth. Ed Schultz exposes this hypocrisy with Robert Reich.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That chart Ed used to show how Republicans are gutting public sector jobs is so important that I found it for you to reference.  Think how much better off we’d be if Republican Governors and state legislatures not fired these important people to give more money to millionaires, billionaires and corporate criminals, like the Koch brothers.

5pubprivtrend

Every Republican in office is one Republican too many!

Share
Nov 052011
 

I am sometimes amazed at the hypocrisy of how Republican supply-side pseudo-Christians express love and support for Israel.  Lurking just behind most are highly anti-Semitic.  Here’s the key.  In extreme fundamentalist eschatological dogma, Israel must occupy the holy land and rebuild the temple before Jesus can return.  However, they believe that, when he does, the majority of the Jews will become crispy critters.  So their so-called love for Israel does not extend to Jews.  Currently, Republican candidates for President are fighting tooth and nail for the endorsements of the most extreme anti-Semites, such as Mike Bickel.

5RickPerryNaziHas the GOP primary gone off the rails before the first vote has even been cast?

In 2008, Sen. John McCain rejected the endorsement of John Hagee, a far-right pastor who had called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore" and said that Hitler was sent by God to be a "hunter" of Jews who had not yet moved to the land that would become Israel. McCain wasn’t exactly running as a moderate – look who he chose to be his vice president – but he knew, at least this time, that a line had been crossed.

 

Today’s GOP presidential candidates seem to have no such scruples.

Compare Hagee’s statements to this passage from a 2004 sermon by Mike Bickle, megachurch pastor, big-time evangelical, and star speaker at Rick Perry’s August prayer rally-cum-campaign launch. In a video found by Brian Wilson of Talk to Action, Bickle prophesies that in the End Times 2/3 of all Jews "will die in the rage of Satan and in the judgments of God." He goes on to discuss a disturbing and ultimately dangerous theory of the Holocaust even more outrageous than that pushed by Hagee:

The Lord says, "I’m going to offer two strategies to Israel, to these 20 million." He says, "First, I am going to offer them grace, I am going to send the fisherman." Do you know how a fisherman lures? I mean do you know how a fisherman does their thing? They have the bait in front, luring the fish. It’s a picture of grace. … And he says, "And if they don’t respond to grace, I’m going to raise up the hunters." And the most famous hunter in recent history is a man named Adolf Hitler. He drove them from the hiding places, he drove them out of the land.

 

Mike Bickle is not just any radical pastor preaching End Times scripture. He was a key organizer of Perry’s The Response rally this summer, lending a number of staff members of his International House of Prayer (yes, IHOP) to the event and emceeing the proceedings himself… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Let me correct one detail.  Before  McConJob and Mooseolini rejected Hagee’s endorsement, they actively sought it out.  McConJob even visited Hagee’s church to do obeisance.  Once the story broke, McConJob defended Hagee.  He only rejected Hagee’s endorsement after the story refused to go away and was hurting his campaign.

McConJob is a model of tolerance, compared to the current crop of ideologues seeking the GOP nomination.  That he considered it so important to get such an endorsement identifies the level of moral bankruptcy to which the Republican Party has fallen.  The notion that Presidential candidates are aligning themselves with people who glorify Hitler for his treatment of Jews puts me at a loss for words.

Share

Strangling the Planet

 Posted by at 12:01 am  Politics
Nov 052011
 

Since I first moved to Portland, 32 years ago, I have noticed changes in the climate.  Summers are getting hotter, and winters are getting colder.  Three out of the last four years have set records for both summer heat and winter cold.  The changes have been subtle, but they have been clear.  We need to stop strangling the planet, before the planet strangles us.  Instead we are setting records in the emission of greenhouse gasses.

5greenhouse-gasesThe global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide has jumped by a record amount, according to the US department of energy, a sign of how feeble the world’s efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, the co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The world pumped about 564m more tons (512m metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, an increase of 6%. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries, China, the US and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.

It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate department of energy figures in the past.

Extra pollution in China and the US account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

I’m more worried about India and the US than I am about China.  The Chinese are forging ahead of the rest of the world in green energy technology.  India seems unwilling to cooperate.  The Obama administration tried to make inroads, but was blocked by Republican filibusters in the Senate.  Now the Obama administration seems more interested in the jobs that the production of dirty energy can create than protecting the planet.  Even worse, Republicans are doing their best to emasculate the EPA.

We need to institute a carbon control program.  Personally, I prefer a carbon tax to cap and trade, because the proceeds can be invested in green energy R&D.  In addition, we need to move the subsidies, currently wasted on big oil, gas, and coal, to support green energy.

Of course some will argue that it does no good for us to clean up our carbon, unless other major polluters do too, but if enough nations agree to both reduce their carbon emissions and embargo the goods and services of those nations who refuse to do so, other nations will fall into line.

I would also see more research directed at developing fusion.  It is clean, and once we reach the threshold,  where we get more energy out than we put in, we will have a virtually limitless supply of clean energy.

Share