November 19, 2008
When the founders of the US wrote up the constitution, they didn’t have a lot of faith in people. Instead of popular votes for the presidency, we have the electoral college. Originally the House of Representatives was the only branch of government to be elected directly by the people, the Senate was appointed by the states. That’s not to mention that only white male landowners were allowed to vote and slaves were 3/5 people. (Note: In full disclosure, author is a white male landowner)
Once inside of the Senate, the rules are even more screwed up and setup so nothing gets accomplished. You only need a majority of voted to pass something, but you need 60 votes to actually bring something up for a vote. If 41 people don’t want something to come up for a vote, they will talk and talk forever- filibuster- so legislation never comes up for a vote. A crafty advantage for a minority.

Liberal Beat Down
Flash forward to 2008, Democrats now have fifty-eight votes and Republicans have forty- with two races remaining. One race, the runoff in Georgia, we discussed earlier. The other race pits incumbent Norm Coleman against comedian/ talk show host/ DFL candidate Al Franken in a recount. If the Democrats were able to pull out these two races: BOOM super majority!
Super awesome! Right! Right?
Actually no.
Just because a senator is a Democrat, does not automatically equal a vote with the majority leadership. When you belong to a club of millionaires who only face reelection every six years, you tend to get a little mavericky. Plus, one of the potential sixty votes would be turncoat Joe Lieberman, Independent of Connecticut, McCain ‘08 supporter.
At the end of the day, it might not be THAT terrible for the majority leadership to negotiate some compromises with Republicans. And seriously, Al Franken in the US Senate might be one of the horseman of the Apocalypse.
November 19, 2008
Focus On The Family, crazy right-wing conservative Christian group extraordinaire, is laying off 149 people, eliminating 53 vacant spots. Can’t say that I’ll be sorry that these people are losing their jobs. After all, when you hate homosexuals, the right of women to have control over their bodies, and any sort of seperation of church and state, well… you probably don’t have too many friends.
Oh, and by the way, God doesn’t listen to your weird prayers! So quit it!
November 12, 2008

I’m seething about this proposed bailout for the failing Detroit automobile industry. Of course, because once again, the taxpayers money will be squandered without as much as an OK from us, and if it is anything like the bank bailout fiasco, well then, who knows how irresponsibly it will be spent. But I am angry not just about how I assume it will turn out (disastrously, once again), but because of this (most likely) crushed opportunity for everyone’s favorite buzzword… “change”.
The American taxpayers should have a say in how their money is spent on these bailouts. It cannot be put back into the failing system. If Detroit is failing with their current practices, would it not make sense to completely re-tool them? As American taxpayers and consumers, we should be able to unanimously demand better and more fuel efficient (or in a perfect world, completely clean energy) vehicles! We should be able to say no to the production of huge SUV’s and trucks! It should not be so much for us to ask for inexpensive, well-made, hybrid (or electric) vehicles across the board. They sell well, they make profits, and they open the door to new technologies. And who wouldn’t want that? Sure, gas is going down right now, but how soon until it’s over four dollars a gallon again? Must we wait that out again?
But you know what? We can write all of the letters and blog posts and op-ed columns we want, but there’s no guarantee that we will ever truly be heard. That’s the part that has me angry. The failings of Detroit could be such a wake up call, where we develop much more superior vehicles that people from all over will be clamoring to drive. If we switch to electric cars, a la Shai Agassi’s plan, or even Al Gore’s, how many more jobs could we also produce? Not to mention as we ween ourselves from foreign oil (and someday oil altogether), how can we be doing anything other than securing a safer future for our country?
November 11, 2008

I respect the role of First Lady in this country, I really do. While it used to be a fairly meaningless title, modern First Ladies have really stepped up and done some wonderful things. Laura Bush championed children and education, Hillary Clinton developed plans for more comprehensive healthcare, Barbara Bush was active in literacy programs, and I have nothing but faith that Michelle Obama will do something great in her four (or more?) years. So with all of this promise for greatness, what is the news media saying today?
Why, interior decoration, of course! Seriously. While watching coverage today of Barack Obama’s meeting with George W. Bush, all MSNBC could harp on about was about how Laura Bush was mentoring Michelle Obama on decorating the girls rooms-to-be. Is this all we have to talk about?
Come on guys! She’s a Princeton and Harvard grad! A successful lawyer! Sure, she is staying at home to care for her young children, but must we really use that to paint her as some bored housewife? I think it’s beautiful that she wants to keep her daughters first, and I have no doubts that she will do great things for this country. Can we just drop that whole weird thing where we believe that a First Lady’s most important job is to look at fabric swatches and paint colors?