The tyranny of the minority

There's been much talk recently about the fate of the US Senate's filibuster.

The filibuster has been most often used to preserve white supremacy and to obstruct voting rights. And both remain its primary uses today. 

The filibuster should have been abolished a long time ago. There's a reason why no other legislative body in the country has anything like it.

It's also worth remembering that the filibuster is not indicating anywhere in the Constitution. It was also never used during the first 50 years of the Senate's history.

The pretext used to cover up the white supremacy-preserving purpose of the filibuster is gobbledygook about "preserving minority rights." 

In deviously gaslighting fashion, "minority" in this context means white elites.

Our constitutional system was designed to protect the rights of the (white) minority. But 'preserving minority [sic] rights' has been corrupted into something far more sinister: a minority veto.

Our system already has plenty of protections from the so-called tyranny of the majority.

In order for a bill to become law, it needs to...

1) Pass the House 

2) Pass the Senate, whose very structure is already tilted in favor of states where few people choose to live

3) Be signed by the president, who himself is elected as the result of a system already tilted in favor of states where few people choose to live.

4) If vetoed by the president, it requires a 2/3 majority of each house of Congress to become law.

5) We also have a federal Constitution with certain safeguards. Even if a bill passes all those hurdles, those offended by a 'tyrannical' law can appeal to the judiciary to overturn said law on constitutional grounds.

Giving 41 senators outright veto power over all legislation is unjustifiable and further corrodes confidence in our already teetering republican democracy. It would be absurd even if the Senate didn't have a nihilistic minority of members.

People have talked about returning to the old filibuster where you could only block legislation by actually standing on your feet and talking. Or about requiring 41 votes to block rather than 60 to approve. These are but band aids on a gaping flesh wound. They don't address the fundamental injustice of a minority veto.

You could argue that the problem is not the existence of the filibuster but the low character of the current crop of senators. But the filibuster has been used in this fashion for most of our country's history. It's impossible to plausibly argue that the filibuster has done more good than harm.

I admit, the existence of the filibuster isn't as corrosive to public confidence as the suffocating influence of money in politics. But the sclerosis it ensures is one more giant hurdle preventing a truly representative political system from emerging.

The Constitution begins with pious words about 'forming a more perfect union." It's long past time we got back to working on that task.

For Congress: junk food or a healthy option?

The Republican Congressional primary for New York's 21st district was described by a local media pooh-bah as a choice between Coke (a DC political hack) and Pepsi (a Wall Street insider). They were virtually identical on most issues of substance, with main "issue" separating the two seemed to be who was a "real" Northern New Yorker. 

Meanwhile RC Cola (the Democratic candidate, a film maker from Manhattan), who's been virtually invisible since his candidacy launch, made a rare intervention. Though of course it was by press release, as per usual and featured some fairly insignificant ideas, also as per usual.

I realize that bashing Congress is a useful populist strategy for a candidate, especially one as empty as RC Cola. But his proposals, while not objectionable in the least, will have an impact that's virtually nil. Depriving Congressmen of a few luxuries does not actually help the American people in any remotely meaningful way. If this is the best he can offer, he should be ignored.

Anyone interested in a substantive candidate with a serious progressive agenda, should check out Matt Funiciello. 

Funiciello's candidacy is so significant that even the National Republican Campaign Committee has taken notice. The NRCC claimed that RC Cola's main concern was people not confusing him with Funiciello. 

Funciello's big ideas are single payer health insurance for all Americans and ending corporate control of govenrment. RC Cola's big ideas are getting rid of the Congressional barber shop and gym. The idea that anyone might confuse the two is laughable.

Syria bombing: so urgent, we can't upset Congressional holiday

The Obama administration's position on the situation in Syria can be summed up as follows: it's an *URGENT* moral imperative that we bomb Syria in order to (insert one of: punish Assad/protect civilians/send a message/keep our word/effectuate regime change). That's why it's going to wait a week and a half until Congress gets around to reconvening rather than bother them on their long holiday weekend.

GOP oversight in action

File this under the ‘You can’t make this stuff up’ category...

Contrary to some, I think it’s great the new Republican majority read the entire text (well almost all of it) on the floor of the House. It’s probably the first time many of them had actually read any of it... certainly the first time for those who enabled President Bush’s war against civil liberties and aggression against Iraq.

Now that they’ve read the Constitution, perhaps they might be inclined to start following it.

Well, maybe not immediately.

Apparently they weren’t paying attention to the clause which stated that only legally sworn-in members could vote on legislation.

This, from the party that promises more rigorous oversight of the Obama administration.

Your fearless leaders in action

It's a good thing we have strong leadership in Congress to guide us on the critical issues of the day.

While New York's senior senator has launched his crusade to push IHOP to break its reliance on foreign condiments, the House Energy and Commerce is dealing with something even more consequential: whether college football's Bowl Championship Series is a fair way to determine a national champion.

I'll save Congress a lot of time and money.

The answer is no.

Now that the critical issue of the college football national championship has been settled, perhaps the committee can go back to more trivial things like developing a rational energy policy.

20th Congressional District update

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I've heard critics contend that The Post-Star would rather ignore an important political event entirely rather than give newsink to a 'third party' candidate. I always assumed this was just hyperbole but I was wrong.

Yesterday, there was a Congressional debate between Libertarian Eric Sundwall and Democrat Scott Murphy answering questions from journalists and each other.

Republican Jim Tedisco did not attend the debate, which is shocking as he's never before met a camera he didn't like. Tedisco instead attended a razzle dazzle PR event on his own, answering tough questions from Facebook users and Twitters.

There was zero coverage of the debate in The Post-Star's print edition. I can only presume this is because they couldn't reasonably run a story on a debate that only covered one candidate. So rather than deigning to cover a 'third party' candidate, they chose instead to ignore the event completely in the real paper.

Fortunately, the debate co-sponsors decided it was worth it for the public to know what happened. The Times-Union did some reporting on it while WMHT.org is making video of the debate available online.

From time to time, The Post-Star has done some decent coverage of the race. But the good stuff has almost invariably been ghettoized in political reporter Maury Thompson's blog and has not appeared in the much more widely read print edition.

Thompson had good Q & A segments with all three candidates, blog only.

He did offer some coverage of the aforementioned debate, but it was not run in the print edition either. It was posted on the blog at 8:42 PM, more than early enough to appear in the real paper if their de facto anti-'third party' editorial policy were different.

Thompson also had not one but two stories on 'donations' made to the campaigns of the major party candidates. Both were worthy pieces that deserved more prominence than being online only.

Speaking of which, Planet Albany blog also had a piece on money and the 20th CD race.

The Glens Falls Chronicle has an extended interview with Scott Murphy in its current issue. I presume the weekly will question Tedisco and hope they will query Sundwall. In future sessions, editor and veteran journalist Mark Frost should target his questions a little better. Asking if state taxes are too high is legitimate question for someone who's running for governor or state legislature. Asking about the recently ratified Glens Falls School District teachers' contract (which Frost has railed against) is a legitimate question for someone who's seeking a seat on the school board. Neither, especially the latter, is appropriate for someone who's running for Congress, which has no jurisdiction over either.

20th CD report

There hasn't been much of substance to report on the race for the vacant 20th Congressional district seat, vacated by now Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Mostly just the usual negative, personal attacks that have little relevance to anyone other than partisans. Planet Albany blog runs sympathetic toward Republican Jim Tedisco. Matt Funiciello endorses Libertarian Eric Sundwall and notes that the candidate will be making a public appearance on Wed. Feb. 11 in Glens Falls. I haven't read much in the blogosphere about Democrat Scott Murphy, whose disorganized campaign recalls clueless Democratic efforts of the pre-Gillibrand era. Gov. David Paterson still has not set a date for the special election.


CANDIDATE WEBSITES
Scott Murphy: www.scottmurphy09.com
Eric Sundwall: www.sundwall4congress.org
Jim Tedisco: www.jimtedisco.com

Populist pandering (pt. 2485)

It's bad enough you have Congress sticking its nose in Major League Baseball's steroids' scandal. Because the sanctity of Barry Bonds' home run record is of much higher import to the average American than the messes we've created in Iraq and Afghanistan, spiraling health care costs or any of a hundred other things our elected representatives should be dealing with instead.

But at least steroids is a controlled substance.

So what excuse does Republican Sen. Arlen Specter have for spouting off about how the NFL handled the New England Patriots' Spygate affair?