Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

I suppose it makes sense that the same party that redefined a 51/49 split as indicating a "mandate", would decide to rewrite long held requirements for a 67% majority vote in the Senate as "super-majority".There is good reason not to treat everything in a democracy, or even to view democracy, as working on the principle that "more than 50% wins". What that sets into play is greater emotional division of the population by handing all power to the slight majority.It is important for some matters, and definitely for the more important matters, that it is not a "bare majority" that decides an issue. A greater majority indicates greater public confidence in its choices. Doesn't that make more sense as a desirable end for a legislative decision? That's because the Republicans are liars. Over their own statements and longheld traditions about federalism, they petitioned the SC to overturn state law to install Bush in 2000. Amazingly the Republican justices agreed, and then said no one should follow that lead in the future. Since than Bush and Co have been championing judges that will change longstanding speech and abortion rights issues.What exactly are the democrats flip-flopping on? What are they trying to change by legal fiat?Indeed isn't this very process we are discussing a reversing of longstanding tradition by Republicans? There is no such thing as a "mandate by majority". A large degree of majority indicates a mandate. That is in fact why the laws they are trying to change are to reduce levels from a suggestion of "mandate" (67%) to a "bare minimum majority" (51%). It is a hoodwink. Don't fall for it.A democracy is not served when every, especially important, decisions are made by the slim majority. What is wrong with greater public confidence in a decision? That's what I can't figure out?Indeed please let me understand why a decision made by a greater majority is somehow worse than by a bare majority?In any case, filibustering acts as a tool to force a majority to recognize and deal with minority positions. If such things are not allowed, is it your suggestion the gov't should simply be made up of whoever won 51% and the rest stay at home till next election? That would be the practical result of removing the few tools little guys have for making their voice heard.It also cannot act as you suggest, with the minority holding sway until reaching the majority. If that were the case then what's the difference, because then the new minority can hold things off till they return to power?See the idea here? It forces compromise.I really am living through bizarro times. Jimmy "Mr Smith goes to Washington" Stewart is now some icon of evil nonAmerican activity? Yeah, Republicans are the ones changing values the majority used to hold dear.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Judges are not supposed to be ideological and be concerned solely regarding state law/state constitution and federal law/federal constitution comparisons.There may be some "ideology" based on interpretation of vague or conflicting segments of law, but if what drives a ruling is moral or political ideology then that is not a worthy justice.It should not be "I don't like this side of an issue, so I will rule against it".The fact of the matter is that most civil rights have not been the advancement of on ideology over another, but a recognition of protections from the constitution such that certain laws are not appropriate. If Republicans want to keep bashing their own heads against the constitution, or subvert the constitution, and so feel put upon by the courts, that is their own problem. It is not that the courts have become more "active" it is that the legislators have become obstinate and want to overthrow the nation to put in place an ideology.But I stand confused on what you just said. Do you really believe that this nation's courts are best served by having ideologically driven justices that represent the moral outlook of the ruling party?Thus you think that there should be, or it would be best served to have contingents that want to persecute blacks, or deprive them of voting rights, have some members in the courts? If for some reason militant atheists gain sway, they should be able to pack the courts with justices that will rule that there should be no churches at all?You might want to rethink your position. It may seem beneficial in the short term, but it makes a mockery of the nation our founding fathers built, the history of our courts and civil rights movements, and could backfire on you in the long run.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Isn't it that the Republicans are trying to change things?I mean last time I checked it was the Republicans crying because they can't get people in positions to change the existing laws, or allow them to step around the constitution (indeed some even wanted to change the Constitution), so that they can make the US more fundamentalist Xian or mega corporate friendly.That would indicate that the Conservative Republicans hate America, not those who like things as they are.My suggestion is that Y'all go move to Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Iraq since it will be the beacon of religious Democracy for all to follow.By the way, though I do not hate all corporations, I want to point out one does not have to love corporations to love America. Where anyone got the idea that you have to like a specific economic entity to be a patriotic American is beyond me. America is about freedom and tolerance, not that goods are bought and sold through largescale production and distribution networks.Heck, one could argue that it is more patriotic (at the very least more conservative) to be championing small family owned, or locally operated, businesses.I mean why would loving Mistubishi, or Philips, or BMW make one patriotic? Large corporations are non national.Don't be a tool.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Personally, I've lost the freedom to hold my head up proudly and say that the US has one of the best intelligence services in the world, that it will pursue our greatest enemies with bulldog tenacity and hawkish vigiliance, that it won't invade other nations on trumped up and flimsy pretexts, and that it has a public which will hold their leaders responsible when great errors have been commited.But to be fair, Congress had little to do with that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I was responding to your cliched "America, love it or leave it" answer. Even if he hates corporations and feels they are the enemy, that would not make him an America hater. However, if you dislike what Americans are like and want to change them by fiat, that would be anti-American.But to answer your question, no I do not believe that corporations are inherently an enemy to the people. They are just business entities. That said, I do believe there are legitimate concerns regarding some corporations at this time, and their connection to gov't needs to be removed. Gov'ts should be above large corporations, and not the other way around. Actually they don't. There are plenty of liberals that enjoy corporations and do not fear them as the enemy. You are spouting conservative dogma.You will find some liberals that do this, but not all or even most. Indeed some of the most liberal might not have anything against corporations. Uh, well I've never actually heard that statement before. Its the "phony Republican values" that throws me. I do believe corporations try and use their connections to try and secure an eternal flow of unending wealth at the expense of the American taxpayers. That is in their interest, so of course they would. Don't you think they do? In a way it does. A corporation could technically be one guy sitting in a room with a computer. When someone says "corporate America" my guess is they generally do not mean that. Indeed it is your own depiction of corporations as the entities which provide X Y and Z that betrays your own acceptance of what "corporate" means, and it is about large corporate structures.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I just told you the freedoms I have lost, and they are the same kinds of freedoms fundies claim they have lost all the time. Remember Janet's nipple? How about Clinton's BJ? How about the idea that some gays might get married?I want the same kinds of freedoms that fundies claim. That's only fair.But if you are asking if there have been any laws which were made, or powers extended, such that certain rights I enjoyed before 911 no longer exist... then the answer is yes.I am uncertain how you can claim otherwise when Ashcroft and Bush both explained the reason why powers were extended and certain laws needed. Ash held a whole press conference to tout the success of having altered powers.And it was also in the news that certain powers extended only for use against terrorists, ended up getting used against a guy for fraud or racketeering.Those in entertainment have also lost the freedom to broadcast as freely as they used to. That was not a result of terrorism, but was of conservative meddling in the media.Do you deny any of these changes?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Exactly. I haven't been reading your back and forth with EZ very closely. For some reason the cliche popped out in your post and so I read it.I agree that EZ is being hyperbolic in his descriptions, though I suppose it is more of a venting than an actual assessment. I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. Most corporations are happy to get gov't assistance, even if it is gov't subsidized loans or tax shelters rather than total freebie money handouts.Most Republicans are quick to undercut any sort of assistance like these to individuals, yet are in full support of them for corporations on the flimsy excuse that corporations make jobs. In reality it is a functioning and healthy (financial health as well) populace which gives the corporations jobs to fill, and in any case it is the individual citizen that begins a corporation.Thus Republicans, for some reason, give an edge and empowerment to existing corporations, while undercutting new growth (which is what a free market should involve) as well as financial health of citizens NOT being aided by corporations.It is generally this trend which makes "liberals" criticize Republicans for being in bed with powerful corporations. Democrats or other liberals generally find a mix between helping both corporations and citizens. There are very few Democrats that are actually anti-free market, or utopian Marxist in outlook. Yet that is how conservatives generally paint liberals.I think one of the most interesting aspects of the 80's-2000's has been watching conservatives, and especially the Republicans, betray everything they have stated they hold dear, that America has stood for, and act out in the way they claim Democrats do... when actually Democrats don't.And before you respond, I am not a Democrat so this is not me coming to their defense. I despise the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans as far as parties go. I'm simply an outside observer noting that the Dems do not do what the Reps claim, but the Reps generally do what the Dems claim as well as what they themselves have claimed the Dems are guilty of.They are the greater of two evils... at least at this point.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

We are in total agreement on this point. In some other thread where Tal was touting the wonders of how citizens should suckle the tit of coprorations and be thankful for what they get, both Schraf and I pointed out this very thing.That is exactly why I think there are differences in corporations and most diatribes regarding "corporate America" are intended for large, public traded organizations.What I love is how Bush and Co make appeals to small corps in order to give humongous tax breaks and other goodies to the larger corps which will decimate them. He has not been a friend of business, he has been a friend of big business.Although I do support his, or any, efforts to streamline the US tax system. Especially for businesses, it is a nightmare.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Apparently you missed the 60 minutes segment on fundamentalist influence in the US gov't, as well as the excellent article in Harper's on essentially the same subject.On 60 minutes a noted Televangelist, Jerry Falwell, openly discussed his and his friends' control of White House policy. I couldn't believe that never made headlines.Since then it has been made public by other evangelist leaders that they were heavily engaged in discussions with Bush on our foreign policy.Prior to 911, Ashcroft held meetings with religious leaders and NO ONE ELSE, in order to create gov't policy for reopening a war on adult literature. To a lesser degree the same happened with conservatives meeting with the congress and education officials to attempt to get more conservative and anti-evo agendas placed within public education. The same occured on specific science and medical issues (panels were assembled to favor nonscience viewpoints on science).I think it is fair to argue there is not overt coordinated conspiracy. But the efforts are are consistent and single focused to avoid balanced input on policy, wholly excluding nonreligious or more specifically nonevangelist dogmatic positions.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree that this will be a split and I hope it will result in a decline for the fundamentalists. For anyone keeping score this is another prediction of mine coming true.I was not disheartened by the 2004 election and stated here at EvC that it was an obvious coalition between all stripes of Republicans which would necessarily mean the next four years will be those stripes vying for internal power.There would have to be splits, and this is one of the first big ones... keep 'em coming because it only makes me smile.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry, what is your attempted insinuation:1) Jerry Falwell and other evangelists were allied with CBS, trying to smear Bush and Co because they knew if people found out what control they had it'd piss people off?or2) CBS altered the footage somehow syncing all the lies they were planting to his mouth's movements, and when it aired the evangelists decided to back the episode because they were blackmailed or something, instead of suing?Remember I said they "openly discussed". This was not some announcer saying things with random shots of evangelists. This was a series of direct interviews with evangelists stating their positions (Falwell being the lead one) with others backing the statements.Also in my post I suggested there were other pieces including segments run by the 700 Club itself, where Pat Robertson discussed his meetings with the White House to guide policy. I guess you don't remember it, but he actually started making the president sound like an idiot for not following Robertson's advice completely (because he wasn't understanding everything). This lead to a spat between Robertson and other evangelist leaders in teh runup to the 2004 elections, because they felt he was hurting Bush.Unless you're going to tell me the 700 club is a liberal media outlet spreading lies, it's time to accept the truth.I've never seen someone so gullible toward propaganda and so skeptical toward the truth.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhmmmm, while I don't totally buy into the pew breakdown, I will take it as true for sake of argument, and in any case even if it were not true I'd have agreed with your statement above.I suppose I should have been more clear, I was discussing more the republican and conservative leadership. I'm hardpressed to understand how you could say the following about the Republican reps in our Federal gov't... If they didn't want to then they wouldn't have voted pretty much as a block against assistance to individuals. What have Reps voted on lately (and I'll give you the last ten years) which is in support of assisting individuals.If you remember right they led the fight to destroy any chance at socialized medical care, helped empower HMOs (which is corporate socialized medicine), gutted welfare and social security, and have been recently trying to siphon more money away from helping individuals and into helping faith-based organizations.But you are right that in the 2004 election many people that do not agree with hard right elements went right ahead and voted for them just to protect the party as a whole.That is in part what I was referring to when I said... I remember what Bush ran on in 2000. I actually liked him better than Gore and certainly did not vote for Gore. He was running on a conservative platform. During his term he has betrayed almost every single promise and the main points of traditional conservative values. In 2004 his platform was almost diametrically opposed to his 2000 platform and looked more Democratic than anything I have ever seen (when one discusses sterotypical negative "democrat" ideas). Heck, the Reps even had a Dem as a speaker at their convention!Whoever voted for Bush in 2000, should not have voted for him in 2004, if they were consistent to their principles. Instead it was a rush to save the party. The exact thing that Reps accuse Dems of all the time... and is not true. I'm not a Democrat. In fact I'm closer to a Republican than a Democrat. Maybe that's why I take their current departure from true conservative values and a total disregard for quality and principle pretty hard.See that's the mistake most Bush apologists make. Just because one is critical of THIS administration, does not make one a Democrat or a bleeding heart liberal.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

These sound interesting. By the way, every once in a while I do like things Bush does. My main problem is that most of the things he does are idiotic and harmful over the long term.He is not a smart man. He is also in bed with big business and has little idea what life is like for the working person, or the small business person, and so how to help them. He does more harm than good.I want to ask you if you have owned or created a small business yourself. You can lie of course and I wouldn't know. But some of the things you pointed to seem to show a lack of understanding of what the policy means, or what it really means for small businesses. I know he has pitched the things you listed as helping small businesses, but some are pure shams. Those two are of no help to actual small businesses. Please explain how the "death tax" will help... I mean really. Those were glittering generalities and not policies. And while ending bundling could help small businesses it doesn't have to. What's really a laugh is that you can quote this when Halliburton is publicly known to have been given nobid contracts. There have been many complaints about other Iraq related contracts as well. Cronyism is running high there boss.Oh yeah, and did you see their energy policy ideas? Deregulation to empower corporations? This does not mean anything either. First of all I am critical of gov't contracting in the first place. I have had first hand experience as a gov't worker working with contractors and then as a contractor working for the gov't. It is a waste and minority contract mandates can especially be a way to exclude lower bidders as well as lose talent.The fact that Bush managed to hire more small businesses as contractors while GROWING THE GOVERNMENT should hardly be a selling point that he is working for conservative values or that he is a friend of small businesses. What do you mean he has increased the number of loans to small businesses? And that last point is a joke. What does it have to do with businesses... it has to do with workers. And that was really a stab in the back for both as he was for removing overtime, which some prefer to comp and flex time. Yes it does, if you have owned your own business, particularly through these times, and understand that just about everything you listed was meaningless propaganda. They sure sounded great though.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Monk, you really do not see a major difference in what happened in Crash's post and what was going in in yours?You actually equate a Judge ruling that a parent cannot raise their child according to their religion, to a school system judging a girl cannot sing a song at a public school function because it has religious content that other families might not want?Honestly?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have known people of different faiths, and even hands down atheists who have sent their kids to Catholic schools. In some areas they have the best facilities and teachers.In any case what does that have to do with whether a parent can be told what religion they can teach their child at home by the gov't? If you believe this is right, do you then believe parents should be barred from discussing creationism at home because that will "confuse" children who will be taught evolution? It's the same thing. I think stopping the kid from singing was going to far and not useful, Thus I disagreed with both situations presented.But there is a huge difference between the two cases. One is the institution of theocratic leanings by the gov't as it allowed direct control of private family matters, and the other was an overstepping of officials trying to be pc or protective (not get sued) by making sure people might not get offended at a public event.You presented the latter case as some sort of anti-religious action. That is false on its face. Other religious people could also have been offended at that public event. And it did not deny anyone their ability to remain religious or practice their religion, unless you equate singing celine dion songs at public school events as part of necessary Xian religious practice?Why can't you just admit that crash's post did show a very troubling example of a public official attempting to step on the practice and teaching of another religion?This message has been edited by holmes, 05-27-2005 05:21 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)