We infer, represents what the majority of the US Senate wants (Cloture failed, 53 -36)
It has never been clearer that the 60-vote rule is destroying our democracy. Is there an alternative available? If so, how could the alternative be worse than this?
I traced the source of a graph that appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, and essentially brought their graph up to date, permanently.
Then I made web-embeddable emblems. These update automatically, too. View them in place, here, for details about how they are calculated. http://evocloud.com/senate_cloture_vote_gr...
The Senate does not represent all US citizens, and some citizens enjoy a greater representation in the Senate than others. The 41% of the Senate most commonly responsible for grinding the post-Brown 111th Senate to a halt, and planning to continue to do so until the November 2011 election, are representatives of a mere 36.4% of the population. The remaining 59 senators, with the party affiliations Democratic, Independent, and Independent Democratic, are representatives of 62.0% of the population. These numbers do not add to 100.0 because over 5 million American citizens, 1.6%, do not have a Senator to protect their interests.
* snip *
If the voting power of Senators were proportional to population, then the Democratic Caucus would have 63.0 votes, a net gain of 4 senators. That would be enough to defeat any Republican filibuster without changing the Senate rules. Without Joe Lieberman, a demonstrably unreliable partner for the Democrats, the voting sum of the caucus would fall slightly to 62.4.
Here's a Valentine's Day reminder that in New York and most of America, not all couples are treated equal under the law.
On Friday Feb 12th and Saturday Feb 13th 2010, couples and friends supporting equal rights for all, about 30 activists in total, staged a peaceful demonstration at two malls in the Albany, NY area. We printed tshirts with hearts asking, "Do you see my love," on the back, and wore them under our jackets. At an appointed time, we all took off our jackets and hugged our partners (or trios, or families). Singles and straight allies paired up for pretend. We held our synchronized hug for two minutes.
So we're stuck with a handful of facts, none of which are in dispute:
1. Congress was told that either $700 billion be handed out immediately or civil order would be lost. They were told this by Bernanke and Paulson and believed it.
2. Congress took the action Paulson and Bernanke demanded but then did not spend the money as they said they would, and yet the "or else" did not happen.
3. Yet neither Paulson or Geithner will take responsibility for the precise actions taken during what they, along with Bernanke, claimed was literally an "end of the world" event!
Paulson gets the cake though - he admitted (under oath!) that The Fed just blatantly printed the money to rescue AIG and the banks (!!!)
PROMISES, PROMISES: Many Obama pledges unkept Jan 14, 1:47 PM (ET) By PHILIP ELLIOTT
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama ends his first year in office with his to-do list still long and his unfulfilled campaign promises stacked high.
From winding down the war in Iraq to limiting lobbyists, Obama has made some progress. But the president has faced political reality and accepted - sometimes grudgingly - compromises that leave him exposed to criticism. Promises that have proven difficult include pledges not to raise taxes, to curb earmarks and to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba by the end of his first year.
"We are moving systematically to bring about change, but change is hard," Obama told a town hall crowd in California. "Change doesn't happen overnight."
That was in March.
During his two-year campaign, Obama thrilled massive crowds with soaring speeches, often railing against an Iraq war that now is seldom mentioned. His presidential comments now are often sober updates on issues like terrorism and the economy, a top priority now that emerged as a major issue only in the campaign's final weeks.
Obama's campaign ambition has been diluted with a pragmatism that has been the hallmark of Year One - without much of the progress he had hoped.
A look at some of the promises: --- THE ECONOMY, TAXES AND DEFICITS -snip- FOREIGN POLICY -snip- TERRORISM -snip- HEALTH CARE -snip- OTHER ISSUES -snip- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained that by saying:
"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions."
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow believes she has found the smoking gun proving Republicans' hypocrisy on health care and the budget deficit: an admission by Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch that, during the Bush administration, "it was standard practice not to pay for things."
Description: Clips from five hate rallies, set to the tune of "Beloved (I John 4 : 7-8 )" which tells us
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
And, just in case that message is not clear, there is a clear example provided a little further down the page.
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
Some of my friends say it is best to ignore these clowns, but I disagree.
Q: I have been a customer since 1998. What have I done wrong? A: Nothing. Everyone's rates went up.
She said she has been getting calls like this all day. It's nothing personal. Everyone is getting the same notice.
Q: What could I have done differently? "Nothing" then the same answer.
Q: Are you trying to drive me away? Q: Do you still want me as a customer? "Of course." She made a case that the current economic climate forces them to do this.
I pointed out that the current interbank discount lending rate is near 0%. It doesn't get lower than that.
Q: In November 2008, my government lent your company $25billion. Where did the bailout money go? She had to consult the script for this one, and made it clear by saying "Let's see... it says here...." She said something about sustainable business, shareholders Clearly she was not prepared to debate, so I just said my peace and let her go.
I said it is not lost on me that my government lent them money dirt cheap to free up credit, and they are unwilling to lend to me at a reasonable rate. We were their lender of last resort, and they would be bankrupt now if it weren't for that. I said I have not made any bad decisions. This kind of rate (30%) is reserved as a threat for what happens when you default. I have not defaulted. I have done nothing wrong. On the other hand, Citi has made too many risky loans. Why should I be punished for your bad decisions? I said, from my perspective, I wish the government had just let them go bankrupt -- I'd be in the same place, unable to obtain credit at a reasonable rate.
There was dead air. So I just let her go. She said have a nice day.
I saw the recent WSJ article about how the stimulus is working. I have watched as the Republican's only unifying cause appears to be anything that can sabotage Obama, no matter what the cost to the country. An image came into my mind. I described it to my sister, and she drew it!
Is "public option" a bad name for the public option? Can you think of a better name? Post it here.
There needs to be a public option, it must cover 100%, and it must be available to all regardless of current employment, proof of hardship or lack thereof. Finally, this public option needs to be more than an option -- it needs to be enabled by default, or there must be a way to sign up for it instantly right there at the hospital or doctors office if it turns out your insurance has lapsed, or the isn't as much coverage as you need. It is difficult to manage paperwork when you are working day and night to keep it together.
Can someone please organize this? Just tell me when, and I'll be there. with friends.
On Sunday, September 25, 2005, a large number of protesters marched on Washington to protest the Iraq war. Media coverage was patchy, but some estimates ran around 250,000 marchers. We did not have the support of Congress. Only a few congresspeople in the Progressive Caucus even acknowledged that we were there. GWB decided to be out of town that weekend, so he did not have a Nixon moment as we shouted at the White House front gate. Still, we made as much impact as we could in a hostile climate. To this day, it is difficult to find MSM articles about the event. But, I was there. The crowd was a dense as it appears in this photo. All day. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
Recent news stories have claimed that the town hall shouters had an influence on our elected leaders. Are we just going to let that go? These losers are going to end up influencing policy just by being loud? Screw that! There are more of us than there are of them!
If we were to have a similar march, this time for single-payer healthcare, even if it is not quite as large, would the media ignore us the same way as in 2005? Would Congress? Would the White House?
The media is in tune with this issue now. They are in gawker mode. Well let's give them something to gawk at.
I believe the Democrats are asking for a backlash from us. FDR famously said, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
