First of all let me begin by wishing everyone a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. Most of us have much to be thankful for no matter what else is going on in the world around us.

This morning I had another "Is it just me?" moment. It came while reading about what is suspected to be the next Republican tactic to thwart democracy and prevent the President from being able to put his nominees on the courts in this country. It deals with a practice known as "blue slip".
This practice began in 1917. Basically it works like this. When someone is nominated to fill a federal judgeship the Senate Judiciary Committee sends out two blue slips, one to each Senator from the state the nominee is from. The blue slip is used by each Senator to signify if they approve or object to the nominee. Traditionally if one of the Senator's objects, or fails to return the blue slip, the nomination does not proceed. 
You can see how this can easily become the next tactic of Republican obstructionism, simply have a Republican Senator withhold his or her blue slip. If the Democratic leadership decides to follow tradition the nomination will not even get past the Judiciary Committee let alone come to a vote. The Republicans will keep all these judgeships vacant, at least until such time as a Republican wins the White House. Then we'll see how often blue slips, or filibusters, are invoked to prevent the winning President from appointing his or her officials and judges. And if the Democrats ever tried the tactic you know the Republicans would scream about how nefarious and unpatriotic this was, and the traditional mainstream corporate media would bleat along with them. 

But that is not the part that struck me and made me ask "Is it just me?"

No, it was the date. 1917. The year the tradition of the blue slip was introduced into the rules of the Senate. That date rang a bell. And then it hit me. That was the same year the Senate introduced the filibuster into its rules as well.
So let me get this straight. There is no mention of filibuster in the Constitution. And for the first 128 years of the Republic (1789 - 1917) there was no filibuster in the Senate. Likewise there is no "blue slip" or requirement to consult and get approval from the Senators of a judicial nominees home state before proceeding with the nomination found in the Constitution either. And for the first 128 years there was no such practice either.
So what is so magical about 1917? It finally hit me. That was when the 17th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect allowing for members of the U.S. Senate to be elected by popular vote. The Constitution had given that power to state legislatures, so it was the state legislatures that elected the Senators. The "people" only directly elected the members of the House of Representatives. 
It would seem that all these rules adopted around the same time have the same thrust. Namely to put a brake on a majority elected by popular vote and protect the losers. It would seem the Senators in office already feared this new found power being given directly to the citizens and were busy putting up roadblocks to keep popular public opinion in check. 
And while there were times when it was frustrating and aggravating (as in the filibusters of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts), there was little visibility or evidence that the filibuster or blue slip rule had dramatic impact on the direction of the country or on the ability of the majority party, or the party who won the White House from being able to govern.
That is until 2007. That is when Democrats regained control of the Congress. The Republicans did not take kindly to their newfound minority status and began using the filibuster at a frequency never before seen. This only accelerated when they lost the White House as well in the 2008 election. There have now been almost as many filibusters by the Republicans from 2007 to present as there had been in the period from 1917 to 2006. Since 1917 there have been 168 filibusters of executive branch or judicial nominees. Over 80 of those 168 have occurred since Obama became President. Clearly the Republicans have abused the filibuster and are prepared to abuse the blue slip tradition as well. 
We now see how a party bent on partisan advantage and putting the good of the nation behind their own political ambitions and ideology can make a government dysfunctional. 
It is one thing to protect the rights of the minority. It is another thing entirely to allow them to abuse rules and protections to completely thwart the majority and attempt to nullify the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
And I believe this is also related to the movement among some Tea Party Republicans and their billionaire benefactors to undo the 17th Amendment and return election of U.S. Senators back to the state legislatures rather than letting people vote for them directly. It is much easier after all to control state legislatures and control local elections than it is to control state-wide elections. Costs a lot less money too. It all part of a pattern to allow corporations and the very rich and powerful to exert ever more control over the politics and economy of this country. 


 

While perusing the internets tubes today I came across the following quote:

The median male worker is doing worse today than he was before 1980 when America adopted Reagan's conservative economic ideology. Conservatism has enriched the rich, stolen from the commons and deprived America of the public investments needed to compete successfully with China, Germany and other world economies. - blogger Fish Out of Water on Daily Kos site

Now why can't we get a liberal Democratic politician to say that? Democrats should be repeating this every chance they get. Instead they spend more time kissing Reagan's ass than kicking it. I suppose to be appear reasonable and let everyone know how bipartisan they can be.
And if a Democrat did say this would he or she immediately be branded by the traditional media as an out of the mainstream extreme ideologue? Of course they would, even though we get an endless parade of just plain batshit nuts pronouncements from right wing Republicans, many of which are easily debunked by fact checking. But they are reported with a straight face by the media with no hint of how extreme or crazy some of the statements are. And every conservative politician  or pundit is treated with respect and an underlying assumption that we should at least consider seriously whatever it is they are saying.
Liberals on the other hand, and their positions, can be treated dismissively. Why should Louis Gohmert be taken seriously but everyone feel free to laugh at Dennis Kucinich? 
Just sayin'.

One way I like to get a rise out of people when getting into a political discussion between those not of like mind is to assert that 50 years from now Jimmy Carter will be hailed as the best American President of the era encompassing the second half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. Fans of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush find that statement especially galling. 
Now I am quick to add some caveats. I am a partisan Democrat but I do like to be reality based. I don't actually believe Carter was a great President. He really was not all that effective despite coming into office post-Watergate with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Anyone who has read Ted Kennedy's autobiography is familiar with some of the issues Carter had with the Beltway Democrats and why he failed to get along with them to get a lot accomplished.
There is one area though where Carter really shone. And that area becomes increasingly apparent and important with each passing day. His biggest success was in the area of energy policy.
It is the one period of my life where I believe our country actually had a comprehensive energy policy. Much of this was a reaction to the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and 1974. The embargo was in retaliation for America's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and some of its neighbors, primarily Egypt and Syria. The embargo lead to shortages, long gas lines, price spikes. Jimmy Carter, however, saw it as a wake-up call and opportunity for the nation.
In his plan there was an emphasis to conserve energy complete with inducements and tax credits for private individuals and businesses. Homes and businesses were insulated. Scrubbers were put into smokestacks to recover lost energy and reduce pollution. Gas efficiency standards were increased for vehicles. 
The other side of the policy was to spur domestic development of alternative, sustainable sources of energy. There was a recognition that domestic oil production had peaked and would never achieve the output of the past. There was also a recognition that reliance on fossil fuels carried steep costs in terms of the environment, public health and national security. Relying on oil meant being dependent on foreign oil no matter how much you might "drill, baby, drill". 
The government provided seed money for research projects for solar, wind and geothermal energy. News stories abounded of the efforts and trials, some big, some small, in these areas. Solar panels were even installed on the roof of the White House. 
All of this of course was abruptly halted once Ronald Reagan defeated Carter and assumed the Presidency. Saint Ronnie worshiped the free market and stated that the wisdom of the free market would determine our energy policy, not bureaucrats in Washington. It didn't hurt that OPEC began dropping its prices around this time so that the average person felt less urgency around supporting programs to find alternate fuels. 
The tax incentives for business and individuals to conserve energy were discontinued. The seed money for research and development into alternative energy sources were cut off or severely cut back. Reagan even made a point of removing the solar panels from the White House roof.
This is a classic example of the limits of the free market as a tool for setting policy. Obviously the best long-term interest of the country was to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and develop home-grown clean renewable domestic sources. However, fossil fuels had been the primary energy source for decades, heck close to a hundred years. An entire infrastructure had been developed and was already in place for the production and distribution of fossil fuels whether it be coal, oil or natural gas. On a per unit cost basis there was no comparison at that point, fossil fuels were cheaper and easier. The wisdom of the free market sent us merrily on the path to hell.
So where are we at today? President Obama with his budget and recovery package of 2009 attempted to boost America's position in research and development of renewable energy sources, an area where we are quickly being outpaced by the Germans and Chinese. So almost 30 years after the last big effort at developing alternatives to fossil fuels we see a renewed effort. A lost generation.
Meanwhile all around us we see the impacts of climate change: droughts in some areas, massive flooding in others, disappearing Arctic ice and tundra, disappearing beaches, increased severity of storms, and the list goes on. Water is becoming an ever more precious commodity. And this is only 2013. 
And with Syria in the news lately and the possibility of the United States becoming further entangled in yet another Middle East conflict, we wonder why we are always being dragged into this arena. If we didn't have such a thirst for oil would we be as concerned about Iraq or Iran or Syria or Middle East stability? 
So when the next generation is fighting wars over water, wondering why everyone in the Middle East seems to want to attack us, dealing with the fallout from a radically changing environment and its impacts on agriculture and public health, they may someday open their history books to a discussion of the Carter Administration and sit there dumbstruck. They will at first be amazed and then an anger will well up inside them. 
"You fools! You had the answer! The blueprint was there and in place! And you tore it up and went back to burning fossil fuels like drunken sailors on shore leave! And this is what you left us! Thanks for nothing!"
And we'll see how those generations will rate Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan. 


  
 

I must be psychic or something. Or a master of the obvious.
In my 8/12 posting I noted that the Obamas were now vacationing on Martha's Vineyard and predicted that even though he has taken only about 1/4 of the vacation days at this point in his administration as George W. Bush had at the same point in his, that we would soon be treated to the annual snide faux outrage of the right wing over the travesty of our "goof off in chief" daring to take time off.
We did not have long to wait.
Sure as shootin' one of our local papers, whose editorial page spouts the same far right wing nonsense heard incessantly on FoxNews, reprinted commentary from a conservative site about Obama's vacation.
The site in question is called Canadian Free Press and is the playground of a Canadian journalist who apparently believes there is no free world without the United States so everyone should worship America. The post even refers to Obama as "our President" .
Basically Obama was compared to Nero who legend has it fiddled while Rome burned. The money quote is "Nero fiddled, Obama golfed."
It noted how Obama has played 133 rounds of golf during his Presidency and here he was at it again while the death toll in Afghanistan approaches 2,300 Americans. Obama is also blamed for the poor economic conditions in the U.S., the growing disparity between rich and poor, and worsening race relations in the country. 
Apparently all of us hard-working Amerkans (you know, "white Americans" wink wink nudge nudge...) are invited to be suitably outraged that this uppity man in the White House dares take vacation and relax while there is any suffering anywhere.
So apparently it was alright for W to take over 300 vacation days (don't know how many rounds of golf and bike rides that included but we've seen the pix, we know it happened). Meanwhile the death toll in Iraq was raising as was our national debt thanks to unpaid for record tax breaks for the wealthy and wars fought on a credit card.  Don't even get me started on how Bush was so anxious to go on one of his bike rides on his first month long vacation (after having been in office seven months mind you) that he blew off the intelligence warning titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." with the curt "okay you've covered your ass" response to the presenter and hit the trails.
And we don't even have to go into how the policies of the Bush administration laid the ground work for the economic disaster we still have not recovered from. Or how he fiddled while a great American city drowned. 
But you know damned well none of these conservative sites or pundits or the paper that reprinted this tripe were complaining then about the time off by Bush or calling it an affront and insult to the rest of us.
I never begrudged any Republican President his time off. Hell the fewer days on the job the better as far as I'm concerned. But as usual the conservatives do not give the same courtesy or respect to Democrats as they insist on for GOP leaders. Which makes them nothing more than partisan hacks and hypocrites.