Drunk With Ink

What is wrong with the Senate…

theDrunk — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:13:35 +0000

So today Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy’s senate seat was won in a special election by a pickup driving, health care reform hating, centerfold modeling, tax cuts for the rich loving, Republican, and listening to all the complaining by progressives about how this is the end of any hope we had of rolling back the damage “W” had done in his 8 years, and how there is no way to fix health care properly now, and how we’ll never get back to a progressive tax system, and how the sun won’t rise tomorrow…. OK, so maybe no one actually said that last one. But, they may as well have. And I have to admit that I was hanging onto the back of that bandwagon, just aching to jump on, when my old buddy Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post woke me up to the fact that the Democrats still have an 18 seat majority in the Senate, and a HUGE majority in the House. Personally, I am tired of being held hostage by a Ben Nelson, or Joe Lieberman, or an Olympia Snowe. And I have a solution for the Senate. Fix your BROKEN rules that require a 3/5 majority to pass LEG-IS-LA-TION. For crying out loud, the only thing the Constitution says about requiring more than a simple majority, i.e. 51 votes, is the requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Senate for confirming treaties, expelling one of its members, and concurring in the proposal of Constitutional Amendments. So, where, oh wise reader, does this ridiculous notion of a 3/5 majority come from you may ask. Well, sit back while I recite a little story about the history of the Senate. Starting with the first Senate in 1789, the rules left no room for a filibuster; a simple majority could move to end debate and bring a matter to a vote. This is because the first set of Senate rules included a procedure to limit debate called “moving the previous question.” This rule was dropped in 1806 in the misunderstanding that it was redundant. Starting in 1837, senators began taking advantage of this gap in the rules by giving lengthy speeches so as to prevent specific measures they opposed from being voted on, a procedure called filibustering. Once the filibuster became possible, and since any Senator could now block a vote, 100% support was required to bring the matter to a vote. However, guess what, even though it was possible it hardly ever happened. Now here our story goes quiet for a while, it is another 70 years before the Senate took another look at filibuster rules, when in 1917, Senator John J. Walsh contended the majority of the Senate could revise a procedural rule at any time, despite the requirement of the Senate rules that a two-thirds majority is necessary to approve a rule change. “When the Constitution says, ‘Each House may determine its rules of proceedings,’ it means that each House may, by a majority vote, a quorum present, determine its rules,” Walsh told the Senate. Opponents countered that Walsh’s “Constitutional option” would lead to procedural chaos, but his argument was a key factor in the adoption of the first cloture rule later that year permitting a two-thirds majority to end debate, and a further change in 1975 reduced the cloture requirement to three-fifths. Supporters of the right to filibuster argue that the Senate has a long tradition of requiring broad support to do business, due in part to the threat of the filibuster, and that this protects the minority. I have only one response, “Bull!!!” The only thing it does is slow the snail pace of change down to a glacial pace. The “nuclear option”, as it has lately been called, is used in response to a filibuster to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator’s point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by the precedent requiring 3/5 vote for cloture. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, “Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?” This is referred to as “appealing from the Chair.” An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer’s ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster would thereafter be barred by the new precedent. In other words, the Senate goes back to doing business the way the House does business, and the way the framers of the Constitution envisioned. What this means in the real world, is that much of the “Change we believed in” when the vast majority of Americans voted for President Obama can be crafted into legislation, passed through the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President. And that is what this country needs!

May The Echo Of The Lion’s Roar Prompt Action

theDrunk — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:28:34 +0000

This week we mourn the passing of the Senate’s Liberal Lion, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Edward Kennedy, or as most of us (meaning New England Progressives) “Teddy”. Even though I never met the man personally, I always recall my family referring to him as “Teddy” and as an adult so have I always just called him “Teddy”. I could go on about his accomplishments, or about how his views reflected and influenced my own, or even about how sorely missed he will be, but I won’t. At least not right now, it hurts a little too much to think about how we won’t see him in the Senate anymore, or pics of him with his dogs on his boat. Instead, I want to express my hope that his passing may prompt some Democrats into coming back to the fold and fight for a Public option (President Obama this means you). There have been far too FEW that are willing to throw down the gauntlet and force the 60 Democrats in the Senate into line to vote for a public option. I am really hoping that Teddy’s passing might shame the President and Harry Reid into whipping the Senate into shape. We ALL know that the only path to universal healthcare is a public option. All the stupid, idiotic, and shortsighted proposals from the right about things like a tax credit to buy private insurance need to be ignored for the trite thin smokescreens that they are for the Health Insurance Conglomerates to maintain their fat paychecks. And in a way, I expect that sort of nonsense from the Right. But, we need to force the Dems that are wavering because their nests have been feathered by the Healthcare lobby into line by threatening to expose them for the hypocrites they are. This job falls to the President and Reid. The President already dropped the ball on mortgage reform. If he fumbles this one as well, I doubt I will be the only progressive looking for a new standard bearer.

Human Life Is Worth $20 To Corporate America

theDrunk — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:08:52 +0000

Ah dear reader, so in case you still don’t believe me about the state of our country and our little known servitude to the machine of corporate America and the wealthy, here is a story where even the Government holds a second tier status to a vast Corporate Giant. Now, before you say, well, yeah the Government shouldn’t be in a superior position to anyone, our rights are more important. This was about the public welfare and the search for a distressed man. According to The Times-Reporter on May 20, 2009 Ohio’s Carroll County sheriff organized a search party for a 62-year-old Carrollton area man man after deputies responded to a domestic call Wednesday at 2:21 p.m. The sheriff said the caller said the man was destroying the house and breaking windows and other items. But when deputies arrived they were told the man had fled and had taken several bottles of pills. So the sheriff’s department initiated an intense search overnight by Carroll County sheriff deputies, an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper and the patrol’s airplane. Two K-9 units, several fire departments and 100 individuals on foot also were involved in the search for the man. Sheriff Sgt. Ron Clapper and firefighters found the man about 1 a.m. the morning of May 21st after 11 hours of searching. Now, you may be saying at this point, “So what? It’s terrible that some man in Ohio had a bit of a breakdown, but what does this have to do with the Tyranny of American Greed?” Well, the reason it took more than a hundred people 11 hours to find the man is that Verizon Wireless refused to add in locating him. Here’s what happend, Sheriff Dale Williams said he attempted to use the man’s cell phone signal to locate him, but the man was behind on his phone bill so the phone had been turned off. Williams contacted Verizon Wireless to request that they turn the phone on for a couple of minutes so they could get a fix on his location. The Verizon operator politely refused to connect the signal unless the sheriff’s department agreed to pay the overdue bill. After some haggling, Williams agreed to pay $20 toward the phone bill in order to find the man. Deputies discovered the man just as Williams was preparing to make arrangements for the payment. “I was more concerned for the person’s life,” Williams said. “It would have been nice if Verizon would have turned on his phone for five or 10 minutes, just long enough to try and find the guy. But they would only turn it on if we agreed to pay $20 of the unpaid bill. Ridiculous.” Williams said he doesn’t know how close the situation was to becoming a tragedy because he’s not a doctor, but he thinks the man’s condition was very serious. So, from Verizon’s perspective, a human life is worth $20. Now my friends do you realize your place in society?

You Know If They Could Get Away With Putting Nicotine In Macaroni & Cheese They Would

theDrunk — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:48:25 +0000

For those of you who only think I rant about financial issues, I have an excellent example of how we are all just slave to the elite and the corporations. Dr. David Kessler, a renowned scientist and former FDA director, set out some seven years ago to figure out the reasons behind the obesity crisis besetting the nation and what he found is laid out in his new book, The End of Overeating. He puts fourth the theory of "Hypereating". Hypereating is eating that is excessive, out of control and has nothing to do with satisfying hunger. You wouldn’t give your child a cigarette, or a shot of whiskey, or a snort of cocaine, but every day millions of American parents are giving thier children something almost as addictive—meals laden with sugar, salt and fat. And this is priming them for a lifetime of “conditioned hypereating.” Corporate America, the modern version of the Feudal Lord, has found another way to get us to spend what we don’t have and buy what we don’t need. It turns out that our national weight gain is not, contrary to popular belief, because we are far less active. Studies have found little difference in the average energy expended now compared to the 1950s. In reality it is because we are eating way more calories than ever before, in the form of soda, junk food, sweets, fat and salt laden meals, and huge portions. We have become addicted to food, and that addiction starts in very early childhood. Kessler’s book explains how sugar, fat and salt stimulates the reward centers of the human brain in a very similar way to cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. By eating food that is extremely palatable, we want more, even when we aren’t hungry, and almost can’t help ourselves. Since highly palatable junk food is socially acceptable, and often cheaper than the healthy stuff, we keep going back for more and more. And no one knows this better than the food industry. Dr. Kessler interview an industry consultant who says that food manufacturing companies try to hit what they call the “three points of the compass”: "Sugar, fat and salt make a food compelling", said the consultant. ‘They make it indulgent. They make it high in hedonic value, which gives us pleasure." “Do you design food specifically to be highly hedonic,” I asked. “Oh, absolutely,” he replied without a moment’s hesitation. “We try to bring as much of that into the equation as possible.” It’s incredibly hard in this country of cheap calories to fight the power of the food makers, advertisers and friends and family. Dr. Kessler, who was instrumental in the 90s in bringing about tobacco regulation, says it will take many years to reverse the trend that started almost 30 years ago, just as it took decades to reduce the smoking rate. But this will only happen if people start standing up for their right to eat food that isn’t designed to addict them and their kids. Maybe some sort of regulation is required,Ii dunno. Try making something from scratch, use less box meals, and for god’s sake, drive by McD’s once in a while without stopping.

The United States of Banking and Serfdom

theDrunk — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:55:10 +0000

Ahhhh, smell that, it is the smell of destroyed dreams in the morning. For those of you who thought my post on April 2, “This Country Needs An Enema”, was overwrought, pedantic, unrealistic, Utopian…. (umm, let me see what else did I hear, oh yeah, I forgot there were those of you who said “On the mark”, correct, the truth, a sad fact…. well you get the point) here is another post that ought to generate some emails. So at the end of April we got a huge neon sign of a message explaining who OWNS this country. A country “of the people, by the people, for the people” my ass… it’s a country of “the Rich”, by “the Rich”, for “the rich”. And don’t start, I am not criticizing Lincoln , he is one of the very few true Americans ever! And one of my personal heroes. So the neon sign of which I speak is the defeat of the measure that would have allowed judges to modify primary mortgages for borrowers in bankruptcy court by the Banking industry and it’s minions in the Senate (mostly Republicans, but with 12 Democrats sprinkled in for good measure). By the way, for anyone interested I will list the Senators at the end of this post. Now here is the thing about primary mortgage modifications in bankruptcy court, it isn’t a new thing. Prior to the 1980′s judges were able to do this, it was the Republican Congress of the 1980′s that changed it. And even today, if you have loans on vacation houses, cars, and boats bankruptcy judges have the power to modify those loans. In other words, for people who have arguably “extra” stuff besides their home, a judge can reduce principal on the loans for such “extras” to make them more affordable, but the judge isn’t allowed to do that for the home that keeps you off the streets. A key idea behind the legislation was that it could have encouraged lenders to modify loans for borrowers before they were forced into bankruptcy. Across the United States, the measure was estimated to prevent 1.69 million foreclosures and preserve $300 billion in home equity. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “I am sick and tired of being asked to give billions to these banks,” threatening to oppose any further industry bailouts. “If they have no sympathy for homeowners facing foreclosure, I don’t have any sympathy for them.” Durbin concluded that banks “frankly own the place.” Now you all know that I have been a long time fan of President Obama, but, this is one time when his administration either dropped the ball (which is what I sincerely hope happend) or caved in to Banking and Mortgage Industry lobbies. They made no push to get this passed. The administration meakly stated they were for the measure, even though it had been one of Candidate Obama’s ideas during the campaign. The President refused to use his bully pulpit to get support for this both in the Senate and in the electorate, instead allowing House Democrats to run with it. Even though in the past he was quick to point out that foreclosures are one of the biggest downward pressures on housing prices. I hate to do it, but, I must agree with much of what was said in the New York Times editorial on May 3rd. So what do we learn from this kiddies? We learn yet again, that if you are wealthy and have influence, then the rules are designed to elevate you and keep you safe from harm. However, if you are a working stiff, doing your best to save your home and family, you better go buy a good thick winter coat just in case! And so, as promised, here are the Senators responsible for the defeat, and courtesy of the Huffington Post, how much some of them were paid by the financial industry to sell their souls: Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS) How much did the Senate go for, well according to the Huffington Post: “The banking and real estate industry has funneled roughly $2,000,000 into Landrieu’s campaign coffers over her 12-year career, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. The financial sector is Nelson’s biggest backer; he’s taken $1.4 million from banks and real estate interests and another $1.2 million from insurance firms. Tester has fielded roughly half a million in his two years in office. Lincoln has taken $1.3 million from banking and real estate interests. “Carper has raked in more than $1.5 million. Baucus, chair of the finance committee, has been on the receiving end of $3.5 million over his career. Specter has hauled in more than $4.5 million and Johnson has gotten some $2.5 million.”

Can The Two Party System Survive?

theDrunk — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:02:57 +0000

And maybe more importantly, should it? We all know the story of how Washington was the only U.S. President that was not formally affiliated with a political party and that he warned in his farewell address that political parties are the most dangerous thing to democracy (I am paraphrasing). And it is not just unlikely, but, virtually impossible, that the party system will ever be removed from politics. Let’s face it, Washington was a dreamer if he thought anything larger than a city council could operate without parties. But, perhaps, just perhaps, there might be an opportunity for more than just the traditional two parties. Maybe. The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the US (even though the Republicans call themselves the Grand Old Party) and is among the oldest in the world, tracing its roots to the Democratic-Republican party founded in opposition to the Federalists in 1792. And the Republican Party is no slouch either, having been founded in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, Republican Party rose to prominence with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. With the strong shift of the Republican Party towards its core far right constituency the time could be ripe for the rise of a new dominant party (or more than one). The Republicans have moved so far away from the center as a party that more an more people who considered themselves to be Republicans are left wondering "where do I fit in?" This may have created an opportunity for one of the minor political parties towards the right to rise to power, perhaps the Libertarian or Constitution Parties, both of whom have similar core beliefs as the Republican Party. Although the Libertarian Party’s position on abortion might preclude this from happening. And let us not forget that the Democrats aren’t exactly the same party as they were under FDR. There are many within the party that feel the Democratic Party has moved to far to the right in an effort to gain and keep political power in national politics. This could allow for an opening to the left for a rise of the Green Party perhaps. My point is that all it would take, I believe, for us to see a new party system, is someone of high national stature to switch to one of these "third parties" in a highly visible way. Much as when Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912 by defecting from the Republicans and joining the Progressive Party. Now, when Roosevelt lost the election the party basically fell apart and most of the defectors went back to the Republicans. And the chances are that if a new dominant party rose to prominence, but, then did not win the Presidency, it would probably fall apart as well. Or maybe we could see the permanent disolution of the two party system by having one or more new parties added to the mix. Personally, I think it could be a good thing.

Connecticut State Senate Passes Machine Gun Ban For Children Under 16

theDrunk — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:29:10 +0000

The Connecticut State Senate just passed a ban on machine guns for kids under 16 years of age. The bill now moves to the House of Representatives, where it is expected to pass according to MSNBC . Ummm, are we kidding? What kind of a society would let children under 16 handle any types of guns? I mean seriously. And this is Connecticut, not Podunk, USA. It’s Connecticut, you know the state sandwiched between Boston and NYC. "For a young person, a minor, to handle an automatic weapon … it’s like saying that it’s OK to pick up a rattlesnake and that it is somehow going to be safe," said Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn. "It’s not going to be safe and it should not be legal and I would think that a lot of folks would be shocked that there was not a law." Yes Mr. StateTheObvious, color me SHOCKED. But, really, I have to say it again, why just "automatic weapons"? Now, I don’t want to hear from another person who says "where I come from there is a long history of gun ownership"… blah, blah, blah. Well, so do I. I come from New England, you know, where the Minute Men started (and I mean the real Minute Men, not the right wing whack jobs that "patrol" the border). They used guns, and picked the fight with the British, and ya know what, I am glad they did. And I am a fan of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Actually, I am fan of the whole Bill of Rights, and most especially of the Declaration of Independence (which wouldn’t have been possible without folks being willing to take up arms against, what I would call, a tyrannical government. Specifically, the Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 290 (2008) settled (wrongly I feel) the issue of the first half of the one sentence Second Amendment. Prior to Heller the Court had ruled in United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174 (1939) in such a way that both sides felt it supported their argument, and the court had been loathe to rule again. It wasn’t until the right wing Cato institute mounted the Heller suit that the now decidedly right leaning Court decided to rule. The majority found that, "the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home." The problem here is that their logic is faulty. Historically speaking, at the time that the Amendment was drafted a militia was not "the body of all citizens capable of military service", but, was in fact much more akin to our modern National Guard. In other words, citizen soldiers, who agree to serve for a specific term and agree to drill and practice. Therefore, and here my dear readers is the "punch line" to this farce of the right wing, the founders did not intend everyone to be able to have unrestricted access to weapons, but, instead wanted to preserve their ability to quickly call up moderately trained individuals quickly should the need arise by mobilizing the state militias.

Live Dogs Used as Shark Bait

theDrunk — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:21:50 +0000

Just when I think humanity has sunk as low as it can possibly go, I get a stinging, shocking, reminder that we have further that we can sink. This article in National Geographic, which admittedly is a few years old, was the latest thing to re-awaken me to how violent, sick, and depraved the human race can truly be. The article, and there were several other articles from around the world as well, states that some fishermen on the French-controlled island of Réunion us both live and dead dogs and cats as bait for catching sharks. Now there have been some sites on the Internet claiming this is a hoax. I find it hard to believe that so many reputable reporting organizations would be caught by a hoax. If it was just one tabloid paper that reported it then I would file it in the same place as the "Two Headed Dog" and "My Husband Is An Alien" stories but, National Georgraphic? And, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is offering a reward of 1,000 euros to any police officer on Réunion who successfully enforces the law prohibiting the use of dogs and cats as bait for the catching of sharks. The reward will be paid upon the successful conviction of any person found guilty of using dogs or cats as bait in shark fishing as defined by the laws of France that specifically outlaw this practice. When this article was published in National Geographic, earlier that month the first court case was held involving a person charged with using live dogs as bait. Authorities found a seven-month-old puppy with three fishing hooks in its paws and snout. The person that was keeping the puppy was found guilty of animal cruelty and fined 5,000 euros (U.S. $5,982), according to Clicanoo, a Réunion newspaper. The amateur fisherman said he did not use the puppy as bait. Instead, he claimed, the dog had been injured by a trap he had set to protect his hens, the paper reported. A story that the French court obviously found bogus. That case isn’t an isolated one, said Fabienne Jouve of GRAAL (Groupement de Réflexion et d’Action pour l’Animal, or the Grouping of Reflection and Action for Animals), an animal rights organization based in Charenton-le-Pont, France. "Lately, almost every week, one dog has been found with hooks on the island, not counting the cats found on the beaches partially eaten by the sharks," Jouve said. Once fishermen capture the animals, she said, the dogs and cats are hooked "the day before, so they can bleed sufficiently." Some escape before being tossed into the ocean. Others aren’t so lucky. After hooks are plunged into their paws and/or snouts, the animals are attached to inflatable tubes with fishing line and dumped into the ocean, Clicanoo, the newspaper, reports. If this does not help prove how degraded the human race has become I don’t know what does.

Forget Detroit, The New Automotive Leadership Is In Anderson, Indiana

theDrunk — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:24:57 +0000

Bright Automotive in Anderson, Indiana today unveiled a 100-mpg delivery van called the IDEA. Forget Detroit and their half-assed hybrid SUVs that get barely better gas mileage than the gas powered version. Innovation in this field is going to come from small start-ups in this country and others. Kudos to the Energy Department for offering significant grants towards the goal of super high efficiency vehicles, Bright Automotive has applied for a grant of $450 million to begin production. They plan to start filling orders by 2013. When I was a teen I was a car nut, just like so many of my friends, and I remember a technical book about superchargers that was talking about the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, and how the engineers in Detroit say that a highly efficient engine could never be built due to the inherent limitations of combustion. What is relevant about this book is that nearly thirty years ago when it was published the author made an offhand remark that is validated today. He said, "The big three will only make their engines incrementally more efficient over time. They will only increase efficiency as much as they need to in order to comply with the law. If exponential increases in fuel efficiency ever come about it will be from the small start-up entrepreneur or backyard enthusiast." Looks like he was close to the mark.

Torture? What Should We Be Willing To Do To Save Lives?

theDrunk — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:00:12 +0000

The "Ticking Timebomb" scenario suggests that in circumstances where lives are at stake, and we have no other means at our disposal, we may, and should, torture a person if doing so produces information that would save lives. It assumes that torture is an effective means of gaining information and the pain and suffering inflicted on the individual tortured is of far less importance than the loss of benefit to those who will die if we do not torture. Therefore, we are not only morally justified in using torture, we must do so.