Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe people of the nation's capital – all 600,000 of them – came closer than ever before to long sought after voting representation in Congress yesterday. But in the end, bipartisan supporters of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act could only muster 57 of the 60 votes needed to stop the latest Republican filibuster.
No one was more damning of the 42 Senators (including one Democrat, Senator Max Baucus) who voted against cloture than bill co-sponsor, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch. At a press conference following the bill's defeat, Hatch said that the tactic of filibustering against civil rights "was resurrected" with that vote. DC Mayor Adrian Fenty – who was on the Senate floor for the vote and attended the press conference along with the entire DC Council – also noted that "not since segregation has the Senate blocked a voting rights bill." Hatch railed against those who argue that the bill is unconstitutional – saying they should give the Supreme Court a chance to determine that – and he believed that opponents simply feared that the court would side with voting rights advocates. Another supporter of the bill, Republican Sen. Susan Collins, had even attached an amendment calling for "expedited" judicial review in an attempt to assuage her colleagues concerns. She urged her colleagues to "stand for an important principle of providing the vote to residents of the District of Columbia."
Following the bill's defeat, an optimistic (non-voting) Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton said, "The fat lady has not sung yet. This war is not over." She said she was "particularly grateful to the 8 Republicans who stood with us" despite "extraordinary pressure" from Republican party leaders. Norton indicated that Republican Senators Thad Cochran, John McCain and Gordon Smith had said that they would vote against the filibuster but that they folded to party pressure.
While many fear that this was the last shot for DC voting rights in this Congress, Norton didn't agree. She noted that the second session will occur in an election year, and that while some Republicans were "scared away" from supporting the bill this time around, in 2008 voting rights advocates will utilize tremendous bipartisan support and follow Senators home to "scare them into" supporting the bill.
"We will get there," Hatch agreed. "Justice is on the side of winning here. Giving 600,000 people the right to vote."
With reporting by Greg Kaufmann, a freelance writer residing in his disenfranchised hometown of Washington, DC.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
This arguement has been settled and won long ago...by the founding fathers...and settled with intelligence from today...let 'em vote with Maryland.
Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 6:16pm
dc should be represented proportionally in the house and get 1 senator...or get divided between virginia and maryland...
the blackwater thing is BIG!!!! the letter to the ny times, this...oh my...falling apart at the seams...
lets send oj over there...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2007 @ 6:38pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 6:16pm
A lot of black people (democrats) in DC. I can see why your lot opposes this.
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/19/2007 @ 6:41pm
The whole "founding fathers" argument is a cop out. If that's so, then all states added to the union after the original colonies don't get a vote anymore. And Senators aren't elected by the people anymore. Etc.
Just tell us why you really don't want them to have a vote...be it politics, skin color, economic class, but don't pull the "founding fathers" BS. It ain't sellin'.
The folks against a D.C. vote probably prefer the arcane Electoral College b/c it probably means their meaningless flyover red-state counts for more than it should.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/19/2007 @ 6:46pm
Posted by MATTMAN 09/19/2007 @ 6:41pm
Idiotic statement made by an amateur in logic and reasoning.
Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 7:21pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 7:21pm
Explain then, why are you against it, if not for it's obvious democratic advantages? The founding fathers? Is that your expert logic and reasoning?
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/19/2007 @ 7:29pm
Idiotic statement made by an amateur in logic and reasoning.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 7:21pm
Beginning with an ad hominem attack, laden with semantic language. Expert logic, republican style indeed.
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/19/2007 @ 7:40pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/19/2007 @ 7:56pm
It's both! Of course it's a democratic advantage for DC to have a representational voice, but that advantage allows to push the progressive agenda that aims to help the people without power or wealth. I know it's hard to fathom taking action on something that doesn't reap a profit, but there are people out there who do just that! They're called liberals, and they're not just trying to destroy the church, promote homosexuality, and legalize pot.
I know it's not fair, but I won't be around till tomorrow if you respond to this Freiheit, since I've got to go. Later!
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/19/2007 @ 8:14pm
Is anybody going to deny that this is eventually about D.C. statehood?
Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 8:39pm
Um, Hatch supporting voting rights? Excuse me, but the other half of the deal was that Utah (his turf)was to get another House seat, so he is also a loser in this dog fight. I'd love to see DC get statehood and the House/Senate reps they deserve without giving the loonies in Utah yet another vote on national matters.
Posted by smckenna at 09/19/2007 @ 9:31pm
RIO BRAVO:
Spoken like a true hypocrite.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 9:38pm
If Washington, D.C., were a state, it would rank last in area behind Rhode Island, 50th in population ahead of Wyoming, first in population density, and 35th in gross state product.
2005 (total population) white 39.02% black 58.04%
D.C. residents pay federal taxes, such as income tax, as well as very high local taxes
Representation in federal government
The U.S. Capitol, seat of the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Federal Government, sits prominently east of the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress direct jurisdiction over Washington, D.C. While Congress has delegated various amounts of this authority to local government, including an elected mayor and city council, Congress still intervenes, from time to time, in local affairs relating to schools, gun control policy, and other issues.
Citizens of the District have no voting representation in Congress. They are represented in the House of Representatives by a non-voting delegate (Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC At-Large)) who sits on committees and participates in debate, but cannot vote. D.C. has no representation at all in the Senate. Attempts to change this situation, including statehood and the proposed District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, have been unsuccessful.
Citizens of Washington, D.C. are not unique in having diminished representation in their federal legislature, although they are unique in having no voting representation at all. Some nations that have built capital cities from scratch, including Nigeria, have diminished representation for a federal district.
Washington's situation can also be compared to the historical status of U.S. territories, which had only non-voting delegates to the House. However, unlike U.S. territories today (such as American Samoa and Guam), citizens of the District of Columbia are fully taxed and subject to all U.S. laws, just as the citizens of the fifty states. In recent years, "Taxation Without Representation" has been the motto featured on D.C. license plates.
With the passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, residents of the District became eligible to vote for President. The District has three electoral votes--the same number as states with the smallest populations, such as Montana, Wyoming, Delaware, Alaska, Vermont, and the Dakotas.
seems like a pretty raw deal to me. ah, who cares? they're only black people. they should do the same for detroit, philly, baltimore, st. louis.........................
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:07pm
ah, it's 11:00
everybody's watching stewart-colbert.
see ya at midnight
:+}
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:12pm
The student who was tasered in Florida was waving a copy of Greg Palast's book, "Armed Madhouse"
Mr. Palast:
Reveal the role of South Florida's Mel Sembler in the vote counting fraud in Florida, about torturing teenagers, and why he was involved in the Niger Forgery that led to war, was the Head of Scooter Libby's Defense Fund, AND held a fundraiser for Joe Lieberman, despite being a lifelong Republican.
Got Zionist Conspiracy?
Mel Sembler heads up Scooter Libby's Legal defense Fund. Mel is a lifelong Republican with a very checkered past:
http://alternet.org/story/27725/ http://www.thestraights.com/index.htm
"In February 1989, President George H.W. Bush appointed Sembler United States Ambassador to Australia and Nauru"
"In 1998 Sembler and his wife went to Israel with George and Laura Bush. Sembler has close personal ties to both George W. and Jeb Bush. Sembler's wife Betty was a fundraiser for Jeb's gubernatorial campaign. Jeb declared August 8, 2000 "Betty Sembler Day" in Florida." (Why did Jeb declare Martial Law 6 days PRIOR to 9/11?)
http://www.thestraights.com/news/charlie-crist.htm
Mel just happened to be the Ambassador to Italy at the same time that Ledeen makes a trip to Rome to meet with him and others - then magically - the purported Niger Yellow Cake document appears in Italy.
Even more interesting, when Lieberman loses to Lamont in the DEMOCRATIC primary, it is Republican Sembler who hosts a fundraiser for Lieberman to run as an Independent (with the full encouragement of the White House). Note that Lieberman's job now is to protect Israeli AGENT CHERTOFF.
Rove orders-up the fake London Terror Scare the next day, to change the subject in the mainstream media. During that fake terror hype, the story of US Spy for Israel, Ariel Joseph Weinmann slips out into the ether, under the radar.
Of Swallows and Ravens http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2189
Israeli Sexpionage in the McGreevey, Condit and Clinton Affairs http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/mossad/israeli_sexpion age.htm
If you always keep the PNAC in mind, and remember the AGENDA that is being pursued on Israel's behalf, it becomes very clear that a massive conspiracy to SELL THE INVASION OF IRAQ was in play.
The only explanation is that GHW Bush and the agents of Israel (including Lieberman) formed a CONSPIRACY (each for their own reasons) to work together to take down Clinton with Sexpionage (and that alliance continued through 9/11 and the invasion of the Middle East):
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2189
Posted by plunger at 09/20/2007 @ 04:25am
I'll bet I was a liberal before you were even born.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/19/2007 @ 8:24pm
FREIHEIT, You sure as hell don't talk like a liberal. You sound like an ultra conservative.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 07:15am
seems like a pretty raw deal to me. ah, who cares? they're only black people. they should do the same for detroit, philly, baltimore, st. louis.........................
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 11:07pm
FROSTY,
Rio probably thinks that the District of Columbia part of Washington D.C. is actually in Columbia and he sure as hell doesn't want any black latinos voting against the likes of W.
Only good native American Indian killers should have a voice in this country. People with a skin color other than redneck should not have the right to vote.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 07:20am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/20/2007 @ 07:20am
actually, u.s. foreign policy has practically made COLOMBIA into another state of the union (without voting rights, of course).
lots of colombian refugees here in CDN will testify to that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 08:25am
With oil and gold both hitting all time highs, the dollar hitting all time lows, it's time for Americans to GET FOCUSED on who the culprits really are. They have brought you Stagflation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
And the new version of the Weimar Republic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimer_republic
Note the picture with this caption: "Inflation 1923–24: a woman feeds her tiled stove with money. At the time, burning money was less expensive than buying firewood."
And what followed the Weimer Republic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
All of this has been BY DESIGN in a grand conspiracy decades in the planning, by men like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_hw_bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller
All to enrich themselves at your expense, increasing their own power and control while creating this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eretz_Israel
Rather than protest against the war, protest against the cause of the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aipac
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html
It's time to name names and hold the co-conspirators responsible for bribery, blackmail, fraud and treason.
Posted by plunger at 09/20/2007 @ 08:31am
Is anybody going to deny that this is eventually about D.C. statehood?
Posted by MASK 09/19/2007 @ 8:39pm
As things presently stand, a damn good idea.
It's sick that Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as Cali. And that redneck WY has about 1/18 the electoral college representation of Cali when it has about 1/70 the population. It's this clear over-representation of shit dump places where no wants to live that enabled the Bush team to enact the slow motion/rolling coup in '00 as the electoral math magnified his vote.
So, statehood for DC? Two more Dem Sens right now? Bring it on.
Of course, further down the road, who knows how it plays out. States like Illlinois and Cali have shifted sides in the last generation from strongly Repulsive to strongly Dem (whereas the South went earlier in the reverse direction). But the principle is the no-brainer correct one - why in Brokeback Mountain BumBlast should WY have two Senators and DC none? -- and the electoral aspects will sort out over time. But for now, MORE DEMS & LESS REPULSIVES WILL PUT NATIONAL INTERESTS AND BATHROOM STALL SECURITY IN A BETTER PLACE.
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/20/2007 @ 08:45am
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/20/2007 @ 08:45am
JOHN, fraid you didn't get the memo.
You're NOT SUPPOSED to ADMIT that it's about gaining power for the Democratic Party. You're supposed to claim it's about "fairness" and "democracy"!
Geez Louise, you're going to ruin everything!
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 08:52am
Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 08:52am
MASK,
I actually pursued both lines of argument.
To wit, in light of the current magnitude of crisis through Cheerleader-led govt:
As things presently stand...It's this clear over-representation of shit dump places where no wants to live that enabled the Bush team to enact the slow motion/rolling coup in '00 ...Two more Dem Sens right now? Bring it on.
-AND-
Of course, further down the road, who knows how it plays out...But the principle is the no-brainer correct one
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/20/2007 @ 09:00am
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/20/2007 @ 09:00am
JOHN, given it is purely a subjective opinion of YOURS that Wyoming is a "shit dump place where no wants to live"...
isn't it JUST as subjective to many that WASHINGTON, DC is a "shit dump place where no wants to live"???
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 09:47am
BTW, as I've said on numerous occasions....if it TRULY is about granting DC residents their right to vote and representation, and NOT about trying to score some cheap political gamesmanship (from people who opposed such games when it comes to...oh...Florida-2000...or Diebold machines?!?!?)...
Then allow the residents of DC to vote as Maryland citizens. Meaning they would be represented by the fine Senators from MD, and gain their 1-2 House Congressional seats. And nobody could argue that it's not fair or strictly partisan.
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 09:49am
Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 09:47am
i'd rather live in wyoming than d.c.
i guess lord wyoming has stigmatized the place for all of time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 09:52am
let 'em vote with Maryland.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 6:16pm
And why not Virginia, John?
Posted by Hman23 at 09/20/2007 @ 09:54am
let 'em vote with Maryland.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 6:16pm
And why not Virginia, John?
Posted by HMAN23 09/20/2007 @ 09:54am
a truly american proposal (from me--to quote mask "heheh")
gerrymander the city so that white people vote in virginia and black people vote in maryland.
said by me with much cynicism.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 10:12am
Geographically, it makes more sense to have DC residents become part of Maryland since they are land-locked by Maryland, while Virginia is across the Potomac.
But if somebody wants to come up with some plan to split the vote between VA and MD, fine with that. Although I think most of the "D.C. vote activists" will want to incorporate into Maryland and boosting Democratic power in MD, than into Virginia and risk "diluting their vote" in conservative VA.
Either way it solves the REAL problem...if that REALLY is what the activists and residents want to solve!
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 10:28am
JOHN, given it is purely a subjective opinion of YOURS that Wyoming is a "shit dump place where no wants to live"...
MASK, I've never been to D.C., but I've been to Wyoming and John has it right, it's a shit dump, and he's being nice. Remember, that's the state that produced Cheney.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 10:30am
Actually, Maryland makes more sense the Virginia because the part of DC that had been Virginia was retroceded in 1847.
Posted by brunowe at 09/20/2007 @ 10:37am
Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 10:28am
honestly y'all should come up with one of them fancy computer models and let that draw the rep. districts based on population distribution and nothing else.
what you've done (gerrymandering) is nuts.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 10:38am
MASK, I've never been to D.C., but I've been to Wyoming and John has it right, it's a shit dump, and he's being nice. Remember, that's the state that produced Cheney.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/20/2007 @ 10:30am
well, lord wyoming is just one of many (well few, but you get my drift)
this doesn't look shitty to me [tinyurl.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 10:45am
Frosty -
Not my suggestion. Just being cynical myself and playing games with Maasch. Seems to me his solution to let 'em vote in Maryland was calculated is all. Maryland is already pretty "blue" and we wouldn't want to dilute that GOP vote in Va. any more than is happening during the last decade or so, now would we?
Truth be told, Md. would make the most sense if one HAD to choose. But I can assure you that if the situation was reveresd, you'd see Va. in Maasch's post - rivers and retrocessions be damned!
Posted by Hman23 at 09/20/2007 @ 10:58am
WOLFGANG, let's let you pick....
Would you prefer this? [outdoors.webshots.com]....
or or would you prefer this [en.wikipedia.org]?
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 11:24am
Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 11:24am
Although those are some gorgeous shots, I'd take DC anyday and leave Wyoming for a vacation (no offense). Even WITH the crime rate, which has seen a huge DROP by the way.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/20/2007 @ 12:34pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 10:45am
OK, so there are a few areas that aren't complete toilet bowls. You take the northwest corner out of the state, and you pretty much have....eastern Montana....yuuuuck. Flat, desolate prairie where there is only scorched earth,wind and tumbleweeds. It's a perfect setting for an old western or a perfect place to send Cheney and Bush back to.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 12:42pm
WOLFGANG, let's let you pick....
MASK, I grew up in Montana and next to Wyoming. You'll have a hard time convincing me about Wyoming. Besides, when there's only 2 people in the state, the crime rate is bound to be pretty low, especially since Cheney moved to Washington. See, where Cheney goes, crime follows. Ha Ha
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 12:47pm
MASK,
I think we can say that the proof of the pudding in the tasting.
300,000,000 Americans have said with their minds and their feet, "I don't want to fucking live in WY". Less than 500,000 have succumbed to the syndrome of being co-stated with the eggregious Darth Cheney who in fact left for TX anyway. And these pathetic population figures prevail despite the fact that WY is 10th in area among US states; so, while is room for everyone, WY is DEAD LAST in pop because it sucks ass.
DC's city population exceeds WY. The metro DC population exceeds WY by 16:1. And the population density per square inch? It's SEVEN THOUSAND TIMES greater in DC, a figure that even includes parts of DC that are waterways.
If people were randomly distributed across the US landmass, WY would be 10th in population for its size. But, decisively NO: Americans avoid the shitdump state of WY like it had a gawdamn plague, aside from the occasional (now 490,000) Repulsive party retard who plops down there. WY's only hope for a hockey-stick upturn in population figures may be if (A) More (secretly) "Put your phallic log in my anal cabin" Repulsive Party mebers realize it is the site of their beloved Brokeback Mountain; and, pursuant to (A) if (B) it builds an international airport and dedicates a LARRY CRAIG endowed stall.
More factoids from wikipedia:
WYOMING
Area Ranked 10th
- Total 97,818 sq mi (253,348 km²)
- Width 280 miles (450 km) & Length 360 miles (580 km)
- Population Ranked 50th
- Total (2000) 493,782
- Density 5.1/sq mi or 1.96/km² (49th)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Area - City 68.3 sq mi (177.0 km²)
- Population, City 581,530
- Density 9,015/sq mi (3,481/km²)
- Metro 8,207,040 (est 2006)
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/20/2007 @ 1:04pm
Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 11:24am
whoa, that place looks just like the pile of mashed potatoes i made last night.
gotta run!
"honey, i'll be back in a few days.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 1:23pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/20/2007 @ 12:42pm
you know, beauty isn't always macro. sometimes what looks ugly from afar is sublime when seen through a magnifying glass.
some of the most beautiful places i know of are deserts. looks ugly until you get out of the pollution machine (car). then, wow!, Allahu Akbar min kulli shay!
the cactus flowers, the bugs, the reptiles
hermoso.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 1:26pm
But being those things used to make me a liberal.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/20/2007 @ 1:13pm
FREIHEIT, You sound like a republican in republican clothes. In short, if that's your position and you've been voting as a democrat, you've been voting against your own views.
Most liberals or dems don't want to abolish the IRS, they wish the IRS would target the real jackasses who don't pay their taxes. Most dems don't have a problem with paying their taxes, we tend to think we're in this government together. We just want the rich to share the burden.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 1:27pm
Gee, me and FROSTY must be the only Greenies left on the blog....all these progressives who prefer urban blight (DC) to pristine nature (WY)...heheh!
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/20/2007 @ 1:04pm
So, JOHN, I take it you support statehood for New York City, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, etc.?
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 1:48pm
BTW, JOHN and WOLF
Where do you think Harrison Ford and a lot of the Hollywood stars have moved to???
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 1:52pm
So, JOHN, I take it you support statehood for New York City, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, etc.?
Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 1:48pm
MASK,
Not exactly. All above named cities already do participate in elections for US senators. And even the smallest towns in their furthest peripheries do too. But DC does not.
Umm, you have noticed these features of reality, right? Or I am a tribune of new and exotic info on this score?
But, yes, pursuing the point to absurdity: In a real sense, Cali would be smart to break into say 10 states. They would then have about the same rep on the west coast in the senate as the east coast does. And as (sens+reps=electoral votes), each citizen of the former Cali would get more representation vested within his or her federal vote.
Salient to the last point: Electoral College has long outlived any use that it may have (but probably never) had. WY and other shitdump places that are breeding grounds of interbreeding are wildly over-representated in a way that does not square with principle. And this is in addition to the WY crowd being whiny, dependent subjects of the nanny state, sucking back more in federal revenue than they furnish from their non-existent tax bases, in telling contrast with kick ass, go-getters blue zones like NY, LA, Chi-Town ...
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/20/2007 @ 2:03pm
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/20/2007 @ 2:03pm
So you'd have no problem with a plan to put the city of Washington, DC into the state of Maryland....as the city of New York is in the state of New York, or the city of Los Angeles is in the state of California?
If so...we have an accord.
BTW, I'm curious as to whether your "they're not a real state" theory of Wyoming....you'd apply to, oh, VERMONT?
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 2:24pm
you'd apply to, oh, VERMONT?
by mask
everybody knows those guys are already a "socialist republic"
the VDR
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 2:29pm
Goodness, you are more dangerous to liberty than the neo-cons.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/20/2007 @ 2:26pm
Not exactly, FREI, since I THANKFULLY cannot claim the blood of tens of thousands of human beings as being an outcome of my decisions and actions. Nor are the 4 million refugeees and countless maimed in my dossier or on my head. The neoClowns and their retarded straggling bands of factotums can trumpet their ownership of such "achievments", for sheer butchery that can never be described in the faintest shadow of its flesh-and-blood misery in mere words, names and numbers. The neoClown gangsters indignantly insisted on perpetrating the invasion when the "new product" was rolled out in Sept 2002 (see: Andrew Card). They may continue to possess full ownership where apportioning credit is concerned.
Aside from that wild shotgun blast into your own foot and knee-cap, the rest of the this series of intellectual orphans that you have dumped into the world via posting are similarly the idling works of a fall-off-the-barstool drunkard with a fully loaded weapon. What, like umm specifically, do you see as a comment made in full seriousness and what does not pass that muster for you (Cali splits in 10???)??? Democracy is straight and strict majority rule -- in contrast with a republic??? Huh??? Wha'???
Time for me to roll, but to restate: Only the most abjectly defeated crackhead could compare a post here to the unpseakably grotesque impact of the vicious campaigns of the neoClowns.
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/20/2007 @ 2:55pm
Time for me to roll, but to restate: Only the most abjectly defeated crackhead could compare a post here to the unpseakably grotesque impact of the vicious campaigns of the neoClowns.
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/20/2007 @ 2:55pm
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 3:11pm
FROSTY, SHAFT kept talking about Wyoming's small population....I just wondered if he'd apply that standard to ANOTHER state with a small population.
Somehow kinda doubt that RED Vermont would get the same treatment!
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 3:40pm
BTW, if not for 100,000 votes in Ohio.....I'd be willing to bet that JOHN SHAFT would change his tune on the Electoral College as well.
For that would have meant Kerry winning Ohio in 2004, and Bush with a popular majority, would have lost the Presidency!
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 3:41pm
FREIHEIT:
Th republic was destroyed years ago. The first time we tried to impose our will on another nation for the sole purpose of making money for a small faction of our population was the beginning of the end.
While I would agree there there is a definite difference between a democracy and a republic, I would disagree with your characterizations of democracy and republic. A democracy without rule of law becomes anarchy. A republic without rule of the people becomes a despotism. Simple as that.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 3:52pm
Also, I find it interesting how you appear to use Republican and conservative as if they were interchangable. They are not. George W. Bush is Republican, but not very conservative. Please try and keep the labels accurate. Thanks.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/20/2007 @ 2:01pm
FREIHEIT, I don't believe I need to be schooled here, but since we are talking about labels, a liberal is someone who believes in more freedom for people, which I think most dems share.
Look, the rules that dictate what the IRS does are pushed through the system not be middle and lower middle class people. Powerful and rich people are the ones forcing the rules to which the IRS operates. Why else are the small fry being hammered by the IRS while corporations and the wealthy hide their money in offshore accounts? Maybe you need to do a little research to see who controls the IRS. I'll give you a hint. It ain't me.
It's the conservatives and republicans both crapping all over the constitution. There are some (a few) republicans trying to defend the constitution under the siege of W, but by and large, most of the republican conservative party are in lock step. If you doubt that, look at the way they have been voting against our constitutional rights in the name of defending us against "terror".
Now, I know conservatives don't like to spend tax dollars on social programs, but I haven't met a conservative yet who wasn't for a big military with a huge defense budget. Almost all republicans love the big military, so once again, they are one and the same as conservatives.
You will see a bigger split on dems and liberals on that subject than you will on conservatives. Most conservatives are staunch capitalists meaning that they believe in the free market system above all else. If you don't make it, then you don't deserve to make it in their eyes, just ask Happy. We liberals tend to be a little more, well, liberal. We like to leave a safety net to help people get back on their feet. The Rethugs and conservatives like to pull the rugs out beneath people feet when they are on their last leg.
What you define as liberal isn't liberal. Maybe you are a liberal socially, but you can't be a liberal and be a conservative at the same time because conservatives don't wish to spend anything on social programs. They think the market should provide all.
P.S. You are correct about Bush not being a conservative. He'ran the budget into the ground pronto. He's certainly not conserving our tax dollars. He's a nutcase Republican who somehow got conservative repubs to back him as well.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/20/2007 @ 4:34pm
FREIHEIT:
The Fed was simply a tool of the ownership class. It was an eventuality, considering what came before it.
FDR, I honestly believe, was trying to salvage a broken and decrepit system, much the way Gorbachev attempted to do the same through Glastnost and Perestroika. The difference was, FDR started the process early enough to prolong the pain for a much longer period of time. Had a Gorbachev come to power in the USSR around the same time, or even after WWII, I think he would have been much more successful, as the system in their country was considerably more malleable and not so torpid as it was in the late 70s and throughout the 80s.
I guess what I am saying is this. FDR was as much to blame as anyone, sure. But he recognized the inherent failures in our economic system and attempted to rectify them for the sake of capitalism. He is no more to blame than any other president who took us to war for such reasons as taking land from Native Americans, or conquering the Philippines, or the Monroe Doctrine, etc. I think it is unfair to lay so much blame on FDR, even though he deserves his fair share. We just have different reasons for coming to a similar conclusion.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 4:36pm
Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 3:40pm
never said anything about its small pop.
that wasn't i.
vermont's beautiful. i imagine so is wyoming.
nothing to do with politics.
you sit corrected.
thanks
off to work.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 4:55pm
FREIHEIT:
You said:
That's where you're wrong, Wolfgang1. Liberals today that I know believe people aren't smart enough to be self reliant. That's why they are for less freedom and more government oversight and control.
My response:
That's not really the whole truth. Of course, it also depends on how you define the term "liberal". If you are saying that liberals want big government to run our lives, and the desire for big government automatically means you're a liberal, that's rather tautological, and more importantly, just doesn't do a very good job of describing the reality of modern liberalism.
You said:
Before you shoot back, please answer this. Should government provide health care? Should the government determine wealth distribution through taxation, or should individuals be allowed to distribute more of their money freely through lower taxes? Do you think the government should control wages through minimum wage legislation and determine how much is too much for CEO's? Should oil and prescription drug prices be regulated by the federal government?
My response:
Allow me, if you will, to answer your questions with some questions of my own.
Do you think that it is the government's responsibility to step in and protect those in a society who are not only weaker than others, but as a result of that comparative weakness, are being taken advantage of, or exploited, or punitively discriminated against?
Do you think that how much money someone has should have no bearing on the amount of power one has, or the quality of and access to justice one has?
Do you think that government has a place for managing anything?
Answer no to any of those questions, and I would be hard-pressed to see how you can consider your views in line with core American values.
You said:
Say yes to any, Wolfgang1, and I'm hard pressed to understand how you can believe that liberals believe in more freedom for people. In my view, liberalism today is all about control and mandating behavior, not more freedom at all.
My response:
The theory is as follows. When you create an equitable field of play in society (and I am not talking about equitable means, I am referring to equitable access to the levers of power, and to the necessities of life), you pave the way for a much more democratic society. And I am not talking simple mob rule. I am talking about true, enlightened democracy, built on the foundation of an informed, happy, healthy population, the constituents of which do not have to live a life under the boot-heel of someone else's whims.
How can you say someone is free when they work paycheck to paycheck on a stagnant wage in an inflationary economic environment?
How can you say someone is free when, if they have no health insurance, yet they get sick and have to sell every little bauble and trinket they have just to get some form of respite from their maladies?
How can you say someone is free when, given the choice between striking and working, and they choose to strike, and the company for whom they work brings in strikebreakers and strong-arm thugs?
How can you say someone is free when they must worry about being lynched just by finding themselves in the wrong part of town, or the wrong part of the country?
Now before you say, "But Jorch, that was all in the past! Some of those circumstances haven't been around for ages!" I would tell you this. It is precisely because of the federal government that we were able to create the rule of law. The government is simply the manifestation of the public will. If the government does not have the power to enforce certain codes of conduct within its own borders, or to rectify obviously unfair, immoral, and unethical treatment of least of our citizens, and you support such a situation, then you, my friend, are not a libertarian. You are an anarchist. And not in the quaint, ooh look he's wearing a anarchy A on his jacket sort of way.
You said:
Big government = less freedom. Today's liberalism = socialism. Socialism = big government. On and on and on and on....
My response:
Again tautological. As I posted on a different day, possibly a different subject blog here, there are many different types of socialism, and not all of them end up with a massive central bureaucracy. Not all of the forms of socialism result in less freedom. But then again, I guess it all depends on to whose freedom you are referring. If it takes government to put genuine buffers on the behavior of the vultures of our society, then so be it. I will take that to the Wild West capitalism of what we are aiming for any day of the week.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 6:17pm
FREIHEIT:
You said:
Hey Wolfgang1, you have it wrong when you say republicans don't want to spend taxes for social programs. What you are confused about is they don't want to throw away money without any tangible results for the people that money intends to help.
My response:
Some yes, some no. There have been a number of studies that prove that when estate tax rates go down, so does charitable giving. I would recommend a wonderful book written by William Gates (Bill's father), called Wealth and the Commonwealth. Very enlightening.
You said:
Think. The war on poverty. Victory? Why do liberals insist on staying the course on failed welfare programs. It is because Democrats use the underprivledged for votes and power. You see, the democrats face a moral hazard with the poor Wolfgang1. They need them to remain poor and ignorant. People both poor and ignorant tend to vote democrat, don't they. It is because they fall for the pandering. Please explain to me what Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton have really done to improve the lives of poor blacks in America. Why is Bill Cosby invisible now for speaking the truth?
My response:
Surprisingly, I agree with you on this point. At least somewhat. The "War on Poverty" has been a boondoggle, and has never really worked. But you have the causes conflated. It hasn't worked because, at every turn, Republicans and conservative Democrats have tried to gut the meaningful programs involved in many of the social programs, and when they haven't succeeded at that, they have turned it to their own ends.
It is true that the dole generally does not create an environment for people to want to get off of it. However, welfare in this country has done precious little to actually help people get out of poverty. It has gone to simple payouts, and fraud on the ground is rampant.
Why did we abandon such programs as the WPA? It worked extremely well. While I would not go as far as to say the New Deal pulled the US out of the Great Depression, it certainly made it infinitely more bearable for countless Americans who otherwise would have starved, or died without heat, or countless other causes. And what's more, it gave people pride in themselves. They were getting paid for honest work, work that helped the US rebuild its ailing infrastructure, or in cases where the infrastructure had never existed, new wealth for the nation.
You said:
Nope, your belief that republicans are against a safety net for the underprivledged in America and the world is false. Do your homework about philanthropy in america and who gives more, conservatives or liberals.
My response:
You're right, conservatives generally do give more as a percentage of their overall income. At least, those are the statistics I saw. But that is a red herring argument, for a couple of reasons.
First, you have to ask yourself what kind of philanthropic pursuits we're talking about here. Are you talking about gifts to the Red Cross, or are you talking about gifts to an educational software company that your son runs? (That is a reference to Barbara Bush, in case you were wondering)
And again, I would highly recommend the book I mentioned above. It's a short read, and simply fantastic. It crushes a number of arguments made by the right regarding taxation, philanthropy, and the like.
You said:
You see, a problem with liberals is they are glad to spend other people's money to make themselves feel good about the world. And they are oblivious to the real consequences.
My response:
I would counter that we are happy to spend our own and others' money providing society as a whole gets to reap the benefits of that spending, rather than a small coterie of super-wealthy individuals putting a soaking to everyone, then telling us how great we all have it.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 6:31pm
Off-topic, but maybe inspire a Katrina vanden Heuvel response...
What is up with the "Keith Olberman Rules" cover?
Olberman consistantly loses to O'Reilly in the ratings. "Loufah" Bill gets in the 2, 2.5 million...Keith gets 500K, 800K on a good night.
So...who's spanking who?
Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 9:05pm
FREIHEIT:
You said:
Jorcheim, our Founders no more trusted in the people always to do the right thing than they trusted in kings. In the republic they created, the House of Representatives was severely restricted in its powers by a Bill of Rights and checked by a Senate whose members were to be chosen by the states, by a president with veto power, and by a Supreme Court.
My response:
True. But they also could not have foreseen the influence of corporations over the entire political process. Jefferson himself feared "the rabble" as you so noted. However, while he was afraid of the masses initially (during the creation of the republic) he later noted with more than a tad of bitter irony that it was the factionalization and special interests that were a greater threat to the republic than mob rule.
You said:
And I'm willing to bet abolition of the Fed would be one of Jefferson's first repair jobs, followed by abolition of the IRS.
My response:
On this point, you are most likely correct. George Washington was vehemently against the creation of a central bank as well. That was one of the primary wedge issues that drove Alexander Hamilton (his aide-de-camp during the Revolutionary War) and him apart.
You said:
You see, Jorcheim, I don't think the right has stayed true to the Founders' vision either. I am not willing to argue that it has, nor do I claim they have in any way. You can indeed make a good argument that a small coterie of super wealthy individuals are calling the shots, but I'm sorry, contrary to the tone here, they're not all right wingers.
My response:
Never said they were. However, the vast majority of them happen to be right wingers. That's just a fact. And more importantly, more often than not, regardless of political persuasion, birds of a feather flock together. It is a rare patrician who breaks ranks with his own class to support the interests of the plebs.
You said:
When I say the war on terror (right) and global warming hysteria (left) are taken from the same playbook I mean it.
My response:
Fear is always the most potent weapon in the arsenal of the demagogue. That is a truism older than history itself.
You said:
I simply contend that the greater risk is the government is the vulture - as it is today. Jorcheim, only the government can force us to do anything. The problems you mention are borne of corporate / government collusion. I wish you could see that is what I want to end.
My response:
True. However, the government has become the handmaiden of the wealthy interests both within and without this country. From the back door K Street dealings to the golf courses of the most luxurious country clubs, it is not the business of the people that gets done, but rather the interests of mega-commerce. So long as the government remains an instrument of power wielded by those who have everything, they will always use that tool as a lever to prise ever more wealth and power out of the hands of the average citizen for the sole purpose of self-aggrandizement.
You said:
Oh, and on the subject of socialism, whatever flavor you're talking about, the US is already there. Over half of working Americans now depend on government or government contracts for their income and futures. We are not a true capitalistic economy, nor are our markets free. Free markets regulate themselves. We wouldn't know, though, because politicians supporting corporate special interests have imposed regulations against fair competition.
My response:
We tried free markets once, in the age of the Robber Barons. It failed then, it would fail now.
You said:
You more than anyone here must understand the danger in political incentives? And knowing those, you actually trust government to operate outside of Constitutional boundries for the COMMON good?
My response:
Not at all. Hence the need for real oversight. By independent, non-governmental watchdog groups, a truly independent press, and a de-politicized commercial sector. I live by the adage of "Trust, but verify." And so should the government.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 10:29pm
great conversation between jorcheim and freiheit. very enlightening, you two. these are the kinds of posts that keep me addicted to this place.
Posted by loveloki at 09/20/2007 @ 10:46pm
LOVELOKI:
I just wish all our conversations and discussions could be so free of bile. FREIHEIT is no dummy, and I believe he appreciates a good, honest tête-à-tête as much as I do. Today's conversation certainly leads me to believe that.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 11:28pm
FREIHEIT:
You said:
Corporations are essentially powerless without leveraging the force of government. Interesting, but at the dawn of the personal computer, typewriter manufacturing interests leveraged politicians in an effort to snuff out the nascient PC industry through crippling taxation and regulation. This was to "save jobs" (and I don't mean Steve) amongst their constituencies. They failed.
My response:
There will always be competing interests within the domestic sphere, politically and economically. And from a purely theoretical standpoint, you're absolutely correct in saying that corporations are powerless without leveraging government. But it's considerably more complicated than that. Corporations are no longer (were they ever?) purely national actors. With the new-found internationalism of commerce, the nation-state continues to lose ground in terms of absolute power. Now, a government can always choose not to "play", and disallow access to a particular corporation, or even all corporations... unless, of course, those corporations have the option to appeal to a "higher" power, in this case, the US.
The point I am making is, it is difficult to unravel the daisy chain of entanglements between government and business. So long as the hegemon, in this case the US, is so pro-business, and not just pro-business, owned and operated by business interests, then the theoretical idea of a corporation relying on the government becomes a pointless distinction, for in our current situation, the government and corporate interests are one and the same on most of the substantive issues of the day.
You said:
There are countless examples, however, where political short term interests trump good sense and free markets. Rent controls, minimum wage laws, eminent domain abuses...
My response:
I personally do not believe that the market, in all case (or even the majority of cases) somehow magically divines the best use of capital, labor, land, or any other mode of production. There are simply too many examples that prove that very thing for me to have anything but severe pessimism in that regard.
You said:
Get business out of government and government out of business. The referee should NEVER play in the game too.
My response:
I agree with that 100%. The government is exactly as you describe... the referee. And it is the government's job to call foul when the interests of the strong, in this case corporations or wealthy and powerful individuals, run roughshod over the interests of the meek, the poor, the disenfranchised.
You said:
Anyone who agrees should be concerned about the idea Federal and State Government should provide health care. Do you really think politicians will answer to your needs better than a fair and free market?
My response:
If we have a truly responsive representative government, of the people, by the people, and for the people? Absolutely. And I often lament our losing sight of precisely that goal.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 11:57pm
FREIHEIT:
I can only respect that kind of thoughtfulness, even when he's wrong.
Bang, zoom! To the moon!
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 11:58pm
Good night, all. Bedtime...
Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2007 @ 12:20am
FREIHEIT:
Th republic was destroyed years ago. The first time we tried to impose our will on another nation for the sole purpose of making money for a small faction of our population was the beginning of the end.
While I would agree there there is a definite difference between a democracy and a republic, I would disagree with your characterizations of democracy and republic. A democracy without rule of law becomes anarchy. A republic without rule of the people becomes a despotism. Simple as that.
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 3:52pm
too bad that's not everybody's page
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 01:47am
So...who's spanking who?
Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 9:05pm
fox news lost about $500,000,000 (i hope that's right) in its first five years of operation.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 01:49am
I just don't think that's right, but I'm shy on data... I'll get back to you on that someday soon.
Posted by FREIHEIT 09/20/2007 @ 11:52pm
but doesn't Mises say something to the effect of "The core of the Austrian framework can be summarized as taking a subjectivist approach to marginal economics, and a focus on the idea that logical consistency of a theory is more important than any interpretation of empirical observations."
and this criticism:
One criticism of the Austrian school is its rejection of the scientific method and empirical testing in favor of supposedly self-evident axioms and logical reasoning.[6] Bryan Caplan has criticized the school for rejecting on principle the use of mathematics or econometrics
why would you care about data?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 01:56am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/21/2007 @ 01:49am
Okay... how long has MSNBC been in business, FROSTY?
Posted by Mask at 09/21/2007 @ 09:19am
Okay... how long has MSNBC been in business, FROSTY?
Posted by MASK 09/21/2007 @ 09:19am
i don't know.
my point is that perseverance is important when fighting goliath.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 09:55am
LA LA LA LA LA
the fat lady has now sung
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2007 @ 01:38am