I've talked to many, many people over the past few days who are struggling to figure out how to respond to the passage of the energy bill. There's a lot of genuine anguish out there.
One camp laments this as yet another defeat in a long string. Reid capitulated to Republicans and accepted a wan, emaciated bill. In the name of getting an incremental step forward, he's allowing Republicans to campaign on having voted for fuel efficiency and Bush to claim credit. He let Big Oil defeat renewable energy. On issue after issue, Reid has let the threat of a filibuster hollow out legislation that has majority support, both in the populace and in Congress. This camp is well-represented by Ken Ward. These folks want a real knock-down, drag-out fight.
On the other hand, it's hard to deny that the bill is a step forward, and probably the most that could have gotten done given the circumstances. Kevin Drum expressed this take yesterday:
Yes, there's still too much corn ethanol in this bill, and losing the 15% mandate for renewable electricity generation was a blow. But seriously, compare this bill to the energy industry porkfest that a Republican congress passed in 2005. It's like night and day. That one was little more than a massive handout to every energy lobbyist who ever dined at Charlie Palmer Steak. Today's bill, by contrast, actually accomplishes something. The CAFE increase to 35 mpg, all by itself, is historic, and 60% of the fuel mandate is for advanced biofuels and cellulosic ethanol, rather than the corn variety. This is real legislation that addresses a real problem, not a handout for campaign donors masquerading as "reform."
With this bill signed, the fight for an even better bill starts tomorrow. But without a Democratic congress we'd still be fighting to get even this much -- and we wouldn't be any closer than we were five years ago. So, warts and all, good job, Harry and Nancy.
So which is it? Is something better than nothing?
A new report out yesterday shows that in just one session, Republicans have set a historic record for the number of filibusters:
"In just one session, a minority in Congress has prevented a mind-blowing 62 pieces of legislation from going to the floor for an up or down vote," said Campaign for America's Future co-director Roger Hickey. "Our report shows how over and over again, the uncompromising minority has thwarted the will of majorities in Congress and of the American people, holding the Senate floor hostage to a radical right-wing agenda."
When Dems were in the minority and so much as breathed of a filibuster, Republicans flew into high dudgeon and threatened the "nuclear option," an unprecedented maneuver that would have scrapped the filibuster altogether.
But now they use the filibuster willy-nilly, and what price do they pay? Headlines like this: "Bush, GOP Prevail on Host of Hill Issues." In the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne protests plaintively that Pelosi and Reid need a "Plan B." He notices, quite accurately, that "The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president."
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Yes, voters blame "the process." They blame "Congress." And Democrats blame each other. And lefty groups blame Democrats. And Republicans get away without a scratch.
How can Democrats change that? They certainly can't rely on help from the media. You'd be hard-pressed to even find the world filibuster in most legislative coverage. It's always, "the bill failed 59-41." A weird sort of failure, but of course the public is not going to pay close enough attention to see what's really going on.
So what's Dionne's solution?
The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they have to do to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
So ... more of the same? And then hope it's an electoral issue? That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
The alternative is to actually force a real, honest-to-god filibuster, but even that isn't as simple as it looks. Karen Tumulty did a quick article about it, asking two experts on Congressional procedure, and they couldn't even agree that it was possible, much less advisable. My sense is that a lot of the people casually calling for forcing a filibuster have no real sense of what it would mean. Frankly, my confidence that Dems would win the ensuing PR battle is fairly low -- when was the last time they won one of those?
Where does that leave us? Frustrated as hell. Even big wins for Dems in 2008 still probably won't put them near the 57, 58 vote threshold they need in the Senate to reliably reach cloture. There's every possibility that next year could see larger majorities of Dems in both houses and a Dem president, and still a Senate minority big enough to generate total deadlock. What's going to stop them? Scruples? Right.
The filibuster sucks.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Comments
View as Flat
Reformed Republican Posted 3:01 am
20 Dec 2007
Just sayin'
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:40 am
20 Dec 2007
It seems to me that the rules around a filibuster impose a natural limit on the frequency with which it can be used, based if nothing else on the limits of physical and psychological endurance among a group of 60-something, well-fed, privileged rich dudes. There's only so many days-on-end debates that a person can stand to have. Also, they have to keep talking through that entire period, and everything they say is on the public record. If their position is asnine, they're going to wind up saying alot of asnine things. Especially after they start to tire.
The filibuster is an extreme option that has some natural limitations built into its structure. However, the threat of a filibuster carries no consequences if your opponent doesn't have the nerve to call your bluff.
The problem isn't the filibuster. It's that the Democratic leadership consists largely of invertebrates.
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:58 am
20 Dec 2007
Counting on national elections is counting on the media to inform the electorate about the issues, for the candidates and parties to get beyond soundbites, and for the electorate to pay enough attention to the details to make sound judgements. If the past is prelude, this doesn't provide much hope for change.
And just for once, I'd like to see Congress put a smaller, cleaner bill into the docket. One that can't be spun by either party and see just where both sides line up on it. The democrats should put that tax break for big oil into a separate little bill next year and put the Republicans in the hot seat on it. Set their ass on fire and fan the flames. This bullshit of Mitch McConnell going on TV and bragging about how the republicans are "molding" legislation should get the intense scrutiny it deserves.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:03 am
20 Dec 2007
Just keep in mind that long-term, it's a two-way street.
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 4:11 am
20 Dec 2007
The government has subsidized or massively supported the building of railroads, roads, electrical infrastructure throughout our history. If people want this type of new, clean energy infrastructure, and most people do, it needs a boost to happen in an accelerated timeframe. As is, the oil industry continues to receive this kind of help well into its mature years. To deny this type of help to renewables undermines the public's wishes for this type of change.
If enough people in both Red and Blue states are aware of these filibusters, they won't happen or it may be possible to actually get constituents to force their Senators to stop.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:56 am
20 Dec 2007
Education is key, and these two types of literacy are essential to the survival of an advanced technological culture. However, we can't even figure out how to consistently teach kids how to read. It's unclear how, of if, we can summon the resources to teach these other forms of knowledge.
Permalink
Michael Hoexter Posted 5:45 am
20 Dec 2007
I believe using the concept of "infrastructure" or "energy infrastructure" as "type" in the philosophical sense, we can help people make connections between past efforts in this area that are recognizable (Interstate system, Western hydroelectric dams, Bureau of Reclamation, Apollo program) and efforts to get renewable energy measures passed. I don't think the supporters of renewable energy emphasize enough that what we are talking about is a change in infrastructure or new infrastructure.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 5:50 am
20 Dec 2007
Several of your statements should not go without challenge.
1) When Dems were in the minority and so much as breathed of a filibuster, Republicans flew into high dudgeon and threatened the "nuclear option," an unprecedented maneuver that would have scrapped the filibuster altogether.
Untrue. The Republicans threatened the nuclear option for only one type of vote - confirmation of Presidential appointments. Democrats used filibusters in a new and unprecidented way to block President Bush's judicial and other appointments which otherwise had support in the Senate. This is a constitutional and separation of powers issue. What is meant by "advise and consent", does that mean 60 votes? I would have preferred that President Bush hauled the Democrats to the Supreme Court and settled this issue once and for all. But the "Gang of 14" inserted themselves into the process. Funny you don't hear much about them any more.
2) But now they use the filibuster willy-nilly
Again - untrue, I won't dispute the number you quoted, but how many of those votes were for ending the war in Iraq in one form or another? Democrats wasted their time trying to appease the Daily Kos kook base of the party with endless, meandingless votes on the war. It was clear from the day they took office that neither the President nor the Republicans would approve any timetables for withdrawals or other moves that would undermine the war in Iraq. The President and Republicans made their intentions clear, it wasn't willy nilly fillibusters, it was the willy nilly and silly legislative agenda of the Democrat Party that caused the fillibusters and veto.
3) He let Big Oil defeat renewable energy.
Do you have anything to back that up? I suppose you mean the renewable fuels standard. API and the industry opposed HR 6 primarily because of targeted tax increases on a handful of energy companies. In 1998 (when oil was $20 per bbl) congress granted tax and royalty relief for exploration in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. At a time when oil companies were laying off workers and cutting capital programs, this kept energy company investments at home instead of making investments overseas. Some of those investments (not all) paid off, and prices rose. Now the Democrat Party wants to punish some energy companies for being profitable. The also wanted to close what they called a "loophole" applied to double taxation on manufactured goods that was extended to energy companies.
API also objected to mandated volumes and type of renewable fuels. The industry is not against renewable fuels, in fact many energy companies are supporting reesarch and production of biofuels. In 2006 regional shortages of gasoline and ethanol demonstrated the folly of boutique fuels and mandating alternatives. The industry is mandated to produce some 20 different grades of gasoline and 3 grades of diesel fuel.
I don't think the industry is against renewables or tax incentives, as long as they are evenly applied - including allowing large energy companies to get into the renewable fuel business and qualify for the same tax breaks.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 6:20 am
20 Dec 2007
Then after lunch we have quiet time so Dick Cheney can send out orders over the implantable chips in our heads.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:53 am
20 Dec 2007
So what you're saying is, Congress gave the oil companies help when they were having trouble. Now that they're doing well, Congress wants to withdraw their support because it's no longer needed and the funds are needed elsewhere. How is that "punishing them for being profitable"?
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 7:20 am
20 Dec 2007
We are playing the end game now, with 5-7 years or less to put in place a radical, global transition from fossil fuels to renewables and efficiency. This is impossible through incremental steps like the Energy Bill. It is impossible if we keep downplaying the terrible reality before us. It is impossible if the US isn't willing to act as a superpower to drive the transformation.
I think the only rational way to decide how we should conduct ourselves day to day and allocate our limited resources, is to use a planning device called "walking backwards." Start with the factor that will force fundamental shift in politics as usual. I think that point will be the first major climate change impact. Whether that will be collapse of ocean fisheries or a collapsing chunk of Antarctic ice, we don't know, but as every indicator is coming in above our highest estimates, it doesn't appear to be too far away.
Many will point out that "this is too late," which is possible. But it's difficult to see what else will shake things loose before then and it is important to keep in mind that there are levels of catastrophic change. Just because Greenland breaks up doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything in our power to keep Antarctica intact.
Either immediately before or during first major impact, politics as usual will break open and there will be a rush to take remedial action. As of now, there is only one fix in the works -- pumping sulphates into the upper atmosphere, particularly pernicious because it is quick and cheap. Even Jim Hanson has taken to saying that we've got to "consider" this as a fall back. http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11993
So that's the future that our present decisions ought to reflect -- continuing rapid ramp-up in fossil fuel use leading to first impacts which create a fluid political environment, with dangerous options lurking. I think that the best way to prepare is to heighten conflict, focusing on renewables/efficiency versus oil, gas & coal, to worry about building up our base of environmentalist and existentialist-minded people who are focused on climate and are very worried (and not majority public opinion), to build an infrastructure (why the heck don't we have even a coalition!) and stop treating a global threat of cataclysm as a domestic policy issue.
Given the 5 year time line, I think that the onus is now on advocates of incremental approaches -- which we have, after all, been doing for 30 years -- to show how such a strategy can work. Then we can debate the relative merits. I'm skeptical, though, whether there is any strategy, or whether we are simply following Newton's First Law.
Ken Ward
ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 9:45 am
20 Dec 2007
The correct analogy is that you want to buy a lottery ticket. You have little cash and several choices. The safe bet is to spend your money where the odds of winning are a lot higher. But instead your home state entices you with lower odds but a much higher payout. You buy the ticket thinking if you win great, if not you are helping the state out.
So you win big, then the state decides to suddenly renegotiate your winnings.
Reminds you of some banana republic - like Venezuela. So when we do foreign deals we don't trust some governments so we put in binding arbitration in case the fiscal regimes change. I guess we need to start doing that for deals in the Gulf of Mexico.
When energy companies start entering the biofuels business the Dems get all outraged that they might collect subsidies. Why? The subsidies and tax breaks are meant to encourage the fuel, it should go to anyone willing to make the investment. Bill Gates invested in ethanol - I didn't hear a big outcry that he didn't need the ethanol subsidy. There are lots of "farmers" living in Manhattan who collect big fat farm subsidy checks. Where is the outrage over that?
ExxonMobil makes less profit than banks, software companies, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and lots of other businesses.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to run off to a lecture about the flat earth.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 9:51 am
20 Dec 2007
But as David Roberts put it "frankly, my confidence that Dems would win the ensuing PR battle is fairly low". More likely it would make the democrats look incompetent or ineffective.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 11:13 am
20 Dec 2007
So it isn't JUST Republicans who do it.
And before you bring up Abe Fortis and the nuclear option, I would remind you that in 1968 Fortis was a Johnson crony with some serious ethical challenges not known to the public. Both Republicans and Democrats joined in the filibuster and that Fortis didn't even have 50 votes to elevate Fortis to Chief Justice in the waning days of the Johnson presidency.
Yes the 110th congress set the new record for fillibusters, at 72 breaking the 98th and 99th (Dem minority) records of 58. That bastion of conservative reporting, the NY Times says: "So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding."
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 12:59 pm
20 Dec 2007
Recess appointments go back to George Washington.
The Democrats are holding up nearly 200 Presidential appointments requiring senate confirmation. Guess they are too busy proposing meaningless anti-war votes to get around to confirmations.
Merry F'ing Christmas from Harry Reid!
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 2:36 pm
20 Dec 2007
Actually the Senator that's banging the gavel the most times over the holiday break is Jim Webb (D-Virginia), who hails from pretty close by. Easy enough, and if recent history is any guide, it may prevent some real yahoos from getting appointments to the federal bench (which are for life, let me remind you).
Also, a quick correction to one of your inferences above, when you criticized DR for saying that Reid let big Oil defeat renewable energy. I didn't think DR was referring to renewable fuels -- I thought he was referring to the renewable portfolio standard (wherein utilities would have to get a significant percentage of their electricity from renewables by a date certain).
The renewable portfolio standard was indeed defeated due to the efforts of a variety of industry lobbyists (including, tellingly, Rudy Guiliani's law firm, hired by utilities).
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 3:13 pm
20 Dec 2007
You care to name any specific yahoos? Or is just anybody that President Bush nominates a yahoo?
Recess appointments are for only 1 year. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
I have my own pocket of the constitution, just like Dennis Kucinich - only I like to read mine.
The 110th Congress ends in early January 2009, a couple of weeks before the President's term in office. So all recess appointments will end then. Recess appointments are part of the checks and balances.
Mr. Roberts said: "He let Big Oil defeat renewable energy." Didn't say anything about Bracewell Giuliani.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 3:17 pm
20 Dec 2007
Can't recall that the Republicans ever did this to President Clinton.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:45 pm
20 Dec 2007
The government's anti-solar policies came from the influence of nuclear industry lobbying. That industry blamed public opinion for their market failures, and public support for a solar economy was (is?) an information liability.
Now, that said, I have been told (from high-level military sources) that the oil companies have large ownership positions in nuclear industries. The military does not like the oil companies.
The White House resistance to renewable energy is just nuts, makes no sense at all.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 5:31 pm
20 Dec 2007
Congress follows public opinion; does not lead it. So there is some progress made this year
we should concentrate on what we can do: organize information
On this point, I have a gripe. I read this blog daily, and I am still confused about the nature of the hurdles to small scale solar power and the big bad energy grid. I remember Gore talking about the need to make changes to permit small fry to sell into the grid.
big issue, really?
what is specific regulatory challenge?
what is bill that would fix it?
who is lobbying, and what are they doing?
Also, I see excited posts around about this and that tech breakthrough just announced. What is real? What are biggest hurdles? Where are we? When can we expect new products, and what price? And even then, what can we expect to accomplish?
Permalink
justlou Posted 11:20 pm
20 Dec 2007
As I've documented before, the media -- with the filibustering GOP in the minority -- now routinely refers to the "60 votes required to pass a bill in the Senate," as though that's the most normal and natural state of affairs in the Senate, rather than what prevails only when a filibuster is invoked. It's precisely because Beltway reporters slothfully refer to the "60-votes required to pass," rather than making clear that Republicans are engaged in a filibuster to obstruct legislation, that such a misleading picture has been created. Thus, they endlessly depict these filibusters as noting more than a "failure on the part of Democrats to obtain the 60 votes required to pass."
Because of that, the public is largely unaware of just how obstructionist the Republicans have been because most Beltway journalists haven't reported it. And they haven't reported it because the rule they follow most religiously is that they never will describe the facts as they are if those facts reflect poorly on Republicans, because to do that means that they are "unbalanced" and "biased" and will be attacked as such. In Beltway journalism circles, misleading though balanced accounts are always preferred to factually truthful, "unbalanced" ones. Republicans always have a valid point, their version is always reasonable and worthy of respect, even when false.
UPDATE: Steven Greene of North Carolina State University's Department of Political Science emails as follows:
A quick and dirty Lexis/Nexis search reveals that in 2007 the Times had 83 stories with the term "filibuster" and the Post had 187. Over the same period in 2005 (seemed like the first year of a Congressional session was the fair comparison), the term "filibuster" appeared in 358 Times stories and 407 Post stories. The data therefore totally back you up on this.
Those facts are, of course, just "the liberal version."
As several commenters have noted, and as I alluded to but didn't state quite as clearly as I should have, Kane's claim that reporters typically "talk about the need for 60 votes to break GOP filibusters" just isn't true. As the collection of articles I gathered here demonstrate, the standard formulation doesn't even include the word "filibuster" at all -- just as those LEXIS figures also reflect -- but simply notes that Democrats "failed to obtain the 60 votes required for passage." The picture that has been presented, then, almost entirely excludes the chronic obstructionism via filibuster which has defined the Senate GOP's behavior all year.
source:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opini ...
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 11:49 pm
20 Dec 2007
I hope you were joking. Like me joking about my Dick Cheney implant.
First of all, it is ExxonMobil and has been for nearly 10 years. There is no Texaco any more. It was Chevron Texaco, but they shortened it to Chevron.
If by the oil companies you mean the U.S. oil companies (Top 3 are ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips), all are publicly traded companies. They would be required by law and their shareholders to report any ownership in companies involved with the nuclear industry. And the companies you speak of would be required by law to disclose the names of any beneficial owners of more than 5% of their company stock.
I don't believe the White House is against alternatives. Even the WH Energy Task Force recommended expanding alternative energy, including solar.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 12:15 am
21 Dec 2007
Yes it is. Generating electric power accounts for the bulk of our air pollution and GHG emissions. The regulatory model in the US favors large decentralized power generating stations.
If I was a small power producer I would not be allowed to sell power to my next door neighbor on my own private power line at a privately negotiated price. I have to sell it back to the grid at whatever price they say.
There is no single bill that could fix this. Each state regulates its own utilities and rates. The traditional model was cost of service plus a regulated rate of return. This ensured utilities wouldn't overcharge customers, but also wiped out any incentives for innovation and cost cutting.
The power companies, EPRI, consumer groups like AARP, are all involved. Large regulated power companies fear that their big assets become worthless if lots of small scale generation comes on line.
All the solar and distributed power breakthroughs mean nothing if you can't fix the regulatory issues. Since electric power is not easily stored, you have the added complexity of the system operator dispatching power to follow the electrical loads. Small power producers need equal access to the electric transportation infrastructure and the ability to negotiate directly with end users.
In short, what needs to happen is MORE deregulation and fewer barriers to entry. Costs are likely to go up in the short run. Unwittingly, environmental NGOs have made permitting very costly and time consuming, pushing projects to ever larger and more remote locations to achieve permits.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:22 am
21 Dec 2007
This is way off filibusters. But anyway, my first-hand oil/solar knowledge dates back to early Reagan. I don't believe anybody owns nuclear anymore, that's a dead horse. And Bush II is far more anti-solar than Reagan ever was.
The Republican filibuster against renewables comes from the ideology at the White House, and is not logical nor driven by non-nuclear business interests. Protecting the oil tax breaks is another matter, separate from mandates for utility (electricity and efficiency) renewables. The oil companies are opposed to public support for global warming mitigation, but that is no reason to filibuster renewables and efficiency. Bush zeroed out solar his first year in office and has been on the war path against solar ever since. Ideologues.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 2:06 am
21 Dec 2007
What do you mean Bush is against solar? And that he zeroed out solar? Did you even read the 2001 Energy Task Force report? There was a whole chapter devoted to mostly solar.
The Energy Act of 2005, which President Bush signd, gave additional tax credits to homeowners who install PV solar. (BTW you have 10 days to get that done before the tax credits expire.)
Just because there is no federal program for something doesn't mean that there is no support. Personally I would abolish the entire US Department of Education. That doesn't mean I hate education, just that the federal government shouldn't be involved.
If you will note in my other posts the so called "tax breaks" were exemptions granted for double taxation from foreign subsidiaries and tax and royalty relief for deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
This constant Bush bashing and blaming the President for every problem in the world is just tiresome.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:22 am
21 Dec 2007
The power grid and information technology system, internet, phone, cable tv lines all run in the public right of way. Wireless signals run on the public airwaves.
The way to make this a "highway" that a real free market in energy and information could operate over would be to make it all go over an internet enabled grid that also acts as an antennae for wireless internet.
That would be a publicly owned and controlled grid, like the interstate highway system. Then power producers or consumers, from a home solar panel or fuel cell vehicle running on biogas or farm based wind system, could respond to an internet signal to produce power and get payed for it. One internet enabled switch/metering device for each consumer or producer.
Similarily, information service providers, like phone or cable companies, of all sizes, can compete on service and price for customers. The old monopolies would fall.
Deregulation? No way. This real free information and energy market/highway would take public ownership and control, just like the highway system.
But of coure the freemarketarian corporatists want to sell the national and local highways to halliburton. That's their idea of a free market. A utility company consolidation bill designed to let the halliburtons gobble up all the local power companies was passed recently.
A truely free grid would even allow non-profit and cooperative energy and information companies to have members all over the grid, providing a whole other alternative to corporate power companies.
Now google has to figure out how all these distributed computers, the internet switching/metering devices, will use parallel computing to form a grid hive mind that keeps power humming steadily, adjusting to supply and demand.
I think they are on that. Who better to make it all work?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:35 am
21 Dec 2007
Ants don't have traffic jams. Google needs to design a fractally acting organic hive mind of distributed internet switching/metering computers.
All the ants (power consumers/producers) working together, keying off of each other to maintain a steady effort.
A recent story on "How Do They do It" featured power grid control. The controllers actually have to wasit for phone calls to direct power. This won't do anymore.
Each solar panel owner can't call the power company when cloud cover lifts to inform them.
How do you write this into a bill? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:56 am
21 Dec 2007
Environmentalism's turn is coming up. Corporatism is still in control, by a very narrow margin. It's gonna be frustrating.
By letting the public anger build towards the powers now in control, the rebound back to sanity can be extended. Bush/cheney, agents of change.
They made life on earth so much more dangerous and difficult, change is now a necessity. Thanks mr presdient.
Janet Reno, tanned, ready, and rested. She is coming for your guns. She has a list (thanks to bush administration cancellation of the constitution) she's checking it twice, gonna burn down your compound and put your kids in a commie reeducation camp (yes, sing it). Hehehey. sorry a little satire.
This is still a partly humorous internet locale?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 4:49 am
21 Dec 2007
Hey DarthPetrol, here's a crumb -- you're right about recess appointments being for a year. Hey, I should've remembered. My only excuse is that it was 12:30 am my time, way past my bedtime... My bad.
Nevertheless, I still stand behind calling so many Bush appointees yahoos, for the record. My part of the country is where he foists (or tries to foist) the theocratic Bible-thumpers, not to mention the occasional racist (remember Charles Pickering?).
And the ones that aren't yahoos are big industry shills. Free market, my ass.
Phew! I feel better now.
Anyway, I'd love to continue this digression (NOT), but I'm off to elderly Luddite-land for a week, so no cyberspace for me.
Happy holidays, all!!
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 5:36 am
21 Dec 2007
Since you have chosen to tag Judge Pickering a racist, I can't let that go unchallenged. The facts tell a different story.
Judge Pickering is very conservative and known not to favor abortion rights, however, he had bipartisan support and would have been confirmed. Pickering was opposed by the NAACP, Urban League and others, but also had support from prominent african americans, including the brother of Medgar Evers. Dems couldn't confront him on the
abortion issue so they trumped up a phony racist charge.
The main and oft repeated charge of racism came from the Judge's sentencing on a cross burning case. There were 3 defendents in the case, a 17-yr-old juvenile who was the main ringleader, and Daniel Swan. Of the 3, Mr. Swan was by all accounts the least culpable in the crime. The justice department reached misdemeanor pleas from the other two, neither of which served any jail time.
Mr. Swan was found guilty. The justice department was asking for two consecutive terms of 5 and 2 1/2 years. Judge Pickering believed that under sentencing guidelines, the 5 year term was misapplied and pleaded with Janet Reno's justice department to provide legal arguments for the harsher sentence. Pickering attempted no less than 4 times to get an explanation from the DOJ over the cours of 3 months, delaying sentencing. Judge Pickering then sentenced Mr. Swan to 27 months telling him that he had committed a "despicable act" and suggesting that he use his time in prison to ponder on ways to improve race relations.
So if Judge Pickering is a racist, then Janet Reno must also be a racist because her department let the other defendents off easily.
I hope you also have a Merry Christmas! Drive safely!
Permalink
AlbrightStoddard Posted 1:03 am
03 Apr 2008
Maybe I am old, jaded, and cynical but I know longer see any difference between either party. Ignore what they say on the campaign trail, what do they do when in office? Honestly, I can't tell a difference anymore.
Permalink