Darryl Cherness asked:


As election day draws near, it appears extremely likely that Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. In addition, there is a general consensus, even among Republicans, that the Democrats will pickup seats in congress and may even obtain a “filibuster proof” majority in the Senate.

Currently, the Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate. In addition to those 49 seats, there are 2 independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving them a 51 seat majority. However, in order to get anything done in the Senate, 60 votes are needed to break Republican sponsored filibusters, the process of talking a bill to death and preventing action on urgently needed legislation.

There is general agreement, given the state of the economy, that 2008 will be a Democratic year. If Democrats pick up 5 seats in the Senate, the minimum they are projected to win, they will have 56 votes and will only need 4 Republican votes to break a filibuster. However, if the Democrats pick up 9 votes, difficult but not impossible, they will be able to shut off debate without crossover Republican votes.

What will it mean for the labor movement to have a filibuster proof, Democratic majority in the Senate?

First and foremost, it means that the Employee Free Choice Act will be enacted into law. The Democratic congress will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act and send that legislation to President Barack Obama who will sign it into law. Once the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law and management can no longer manipulate company based representation elections, it is a safe bet that there should be a significant increase in the number of union represented employees in the United States.

In addition to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a strong Democratic majority in congress can be counted on to periodically raise the federal minimum wage for the working poor. Hopefully, the days of having to wait nine years for small increases in the minimum wage should become a relic of the past.

Other areas where significant changes can be anticipated include revisions in NAFTA to make it more labor friendly, the elimination of tax incentives to encourage American businesses to relocate overseas, greater regulation of the home loan industry to prevent a reoccurrence of the “subprime” housing debacle, and tax breaks for middle income wage earners.

Another significant change will come in the area of job creation. Unlike George Bush, Senator Obama has made it clear that he intends to spend significant sums of money on promoting renewable energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The expenditure of these funds should create thousands of new jobs for working men and women.

Finally, it is my belief that it is absolutely inevitable that the Democratic congress and the new Democratic president will allocate significant resources for “public works” projects; i.e. repair of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers, water treatment plants, etc. Rather than rely on the marketplace to generate wealth that will “trickle down” to the masses, Obama and the Democratic congress will take direct action to stimulate our economy and return our nation to prosperity by means of these job creating projects.

I believe that the next four years may very well be recorded by historians as labor’s new “golden age.”

Add A Comment

Logged in as Darryl Cherness. Logout »

Garry Gamber asked:


The filibuster has been a tool available to U.S. Senators during Senate floor discussions on legislation and appointments since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have valued the filibuster as a means to bring compromise and bipartisanship to bitter and divisive debates.

The word, filibuster, as it applies to the American political process refers to a political delaying tactic such as a long speech used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of legislation. The older meaning of filibuster refers to the illegal act of plundering or piracy; of capturing a ship and its cargo and holding it for ransom.

The etymology of the word, filibuster, seems to date back to about 1560-1570 when the English anglicized the Dutch word, vrijbutier, into freebooter. A freebooter is understood to be a person who goes in search of plunder; a pirate, a buccaneer. Shortly thereafter, the French adopted filibustier and the Spanish adopted filibustero to mean the same thing. In the 17th century the English transformed the Spanish word into filibuster to describe the actions of the pirates who attacked the Spanish explorers of the New World. In the 1800’s the Americans popularized the word filibuster, referring to the activities of famous pirates operating in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Filibuster as Piracy

From 1830 to 1860 the countries of Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua were all victims of various filibuster campaigns. The filibusters were led by groups of adventurers who, without the consent of the American Government, but with the aid of private American finance, tried to seize political power in these Latin American and Caribbean countries. Part of the aim of the filibuster campaigns was to empower the population of these countries and bring forth a revolution that would be beneficial to American interests, mainly the slave trade.

Financial support for the filibusters came largely from the southern states where parades of celebration were held in their honor and songs were written about their adventures. Officially, the U.S. did not support the filibuster campaigns because the military was spread too thin to be able to provide adequate enforcement of the laws against the involvement. Many citizens saw the campaigns as an aspect of “manifest destiny,” the idea that America had a right to unlimited expansion.

A couple of famous filibusterers include Narciso Lopez and William Walker. Lopez liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule and attempted three times to liberate Cuba. Walker, from Tennessee, annexed parts of Mexico, including Lower California, and declared himself to be president. The U.S. government did not support Walker and eventually brought him to trial.

The era of the Filibuster Movement ended when the U.S. Civil War started. Attention and resources were given to the defense of the North and the South, ending the efforts of the filibuster campaigns.

Filibuster as a Political Tool

During the period from 1840 to 1860, numerous Southern politicians made long speeches during Senate floor debates on legislation bills for the purpose of delaying the bill or preventing a vote on the bill. The word filibuster was borrowed to describe these speeches, which were thought of as piracy of time and opportunity. Henry Clay, in 1841, gave what is considered to be the first filibuster speech.

As the debate over the slavery issue became more important in Congress, southern politicians used the tactic of long dilatory speeches to block all civil rights legislation. The word filibuster became popularized during this pre-Civil War period.

Legislative Rules

The U.S. Constitution did not give direction to the House of Representatives or to the Senate regarding how to conduct everyday business and how to conduct debates on the floor. Each body was expected to create and adopt their own rules.

On day 2 of the first Senate meeting a special committee was created to “prepare a system of rules for conducting business.” A few days later, on April 7, 1789, the special committee filed their first rules report and on April 16, 1789, the Senate adopted their first set of rules. The first set contained 19 rules and on April 18 number 20 was adopted. At this point the special committee was disbanded.

The rules committee was recreated on several occasions during succeeding years for the purpose of creating new rules or revising existing rules. Since 1789 there have been 7 adoptions of new or revised rules; in 1806, 1820, 1828, 1877, 1884, and 1979. Some rules have been amended and passed by the Senate without going to a committee. The change to Rule XXII in 1917 to provide for a cloture procedure is a good example. There currently are a total of 43 Standing Rules of the Senate.

The House Rules and Manual of the U.S. House of Representatives does not allow for filibuster speeches. Each Representative is allowed to hold the floor to debate a question for one hour and may only speak once on each question. The House is a large body and the members thought it wise to limit the amount of time that a Representative may speak.

The Senate is an entirely different situation, however.

Senate Rule XIX

Rule XIX is the key rule that provides a structure for debate on the Senate floor. A key provision of the rule states that when a Senator rises to seek recognition during floor debate, he or she is guaranteed a chance to speak on the question for as long as he or she wishes. The presiding officer is not given discretion in this matter and must recognize each Senator in order. During the period of time that a recognized Senator is speaking the question before the Senate cannot come to a vote. The Senator cannot be interrupted or be forced to stop their speech without their consent.

Debate Rule XIX does not limit the number of Senators who may speak on an issue. The rule does, however, limit each Senator to two speeches per legislative day on each issue. During a filibuster period the presiding officer will typically call a recess rather than an adjournment at the end of the calendar day, keeping the legislative day alive when the Senate reconvenes. This tactic effectively limits each Senator to a maximum of two speeches on each issue. It is possible, however, for a Senator to offer an amendment in order to create a new debatable question, on which the Senators may make two more speeches.

A relatively recent provision in Rule XIX, called the “Pastore Rule” in honor of Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, requires that debate on a question must be germane to the question. During filibuster periods this rule is enforced to prevent Senators from making meaningless, off-topic speeches. During the 1930’s through the 1950’s several Senators, such as Huey Long and Strom Thurmond made long filibusters which included readings of recipes, the Congressional Record, the Declaration of Independence, and other non-germane topics.

While a Senator is speaking on an issue he or she must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously. During a filibuster-length speech this requirement creates fatigue in the speaker. However, the speaker may yield to a question from another Senator without losing the floor. The other Senator can provide relief by asking a very long question followed by a short answer, followed by more long questions. In this manner a group of Senators can work together to extend the length of a Senator’s speaking period.

Senate Rule XXII

The procedures for invoking cloture for purposes of wrapping up the floor debate and bringing the question to a vote are contained in Rule XXII. The process requires a motion that is signed by at least 16 Senators and presented to the presiding officer while the question is being debated. The rule requires that the cloture motion must be seasoned, meaning that it cannot be acted upon until the second day after it is presented.

One hour after the cloture motion has matured on the third day the presiding officer interrupts the Senate proceedings and presents the cloture motion to the Senate for a vote. At this point an automatic roll call vote is required.

In 1975 the Senate voted to change the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to 60% from the previous 67%. A compromise was struck, however, because some Senators feared that if changing the Rule was too easy that the majority needed to invoke cloture might be reduced further in the future. Therefore, the Senate agreed that to make future rule changes, including changing the cloture rule itself, would require the traditional 67% majority vote.

If the motion to invoke cloture is defeated the Senators can reconsider the vote or file a new motion to invoke cloture. For example, in 1988 there were eight cloture motions on a campaign finance reform bill and all eight motions were defeated.

If a motion to invoke cloture is successful, then the effect of invoking cloture only guarantees that a vote on the question will take place eventually, but not immediately. After the successful cloture motion has passed the Senate is said to be working under cloture. Rule XXII imposes a maximum cap of 30 additional hours for debate, quorum calls, parliamentary inquiries, and other proceedings prior to an actual vote on the question. During this cloture period each Senator is entitled to speak for a total of not more than one hour.

Once cloture has been invoked under Rule XXII, the point of a filibuster is largely lost. Without exception, proceedings are wrapped up in less than 30 hours and the question is brought to a vote.

Conclusion

The filibuster speech in the Senate has enjoyed a long tradition and has been used for several purposes. On one hand the filibuster has been used to persuade others of the validity of the minority position on a question. Open and unlimited debate can change minds and sway opinion. The filibuster speech process may help to defeat an issue once a vote is taken.

On the other hand, the filibuster has been used to stall or prevent a vote on an issue. The filibuster speech or the threat of a filibuster may cause the issue to be tabled or withdrawn and not brought to a vote on the floor.

The minority party in the Senate counts on the use of the filibuster as a means to prevent the majority party from wielding too much influence. Such a tool encourages the two major parties in the Senate to work in nonpartisan ways to resolve differences. The filibuster creates a need for compromise. It has been suggested that without the filibuster tool the Senate would be much less productive in producing legislation.

Bob Patterson asked:


All of the recent polls show favorable numbers for President Obama as a person. He appears to be a very nice individual with a wonderful family. What isn’t being reported is that while his popularity is high so too are the numbers reflecting a distrust of his policies.

Our country is in serious financial shape and is looking towards Washington for guidance and direction. When everything started down a long slippery slope, Obama was touting the idea that Wall Street has nothing but rich individuals that are responsible for the financial fiasco. This rich versus the common man syndrome sounds eerily familiar to what a dictator was espousing in Germany in order to gain power in the late 30’s. It worked then and it appears to be working now. For an understanding of this just look at the recent G-20 Summit held in England. What you had was a great deal of protesters who broke windows on banks and occupied their offices. Of course the rich caused the problems. Didn’t they?

Everything seemed to have come to a head with the bonuses paid to executives of American International Group. According to The Washington Post on-line (May 13, 2009) the Federal Reserve Bank of New York knew about the details of the bonus structure “more than five months before the firestorm erupted.” I can certainly understand why some might be upset with what was happening but based on contractual arrangements the government should not have attempted to intervene. The idea that AIG was paying bonuses made for a fantastic headline and gave political ammunition to Obama. The question is why shouldn’t contracts be honored? Just remember that if Obama can bring heat to one organization he can bring it to yours. In an article “AIG bonus blackmail and resignations” (www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/03/aig_bonus_blackmail/; March 26, 2009) provides part of a letter from one of the bonus receiving executives.

“I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.”

How many of you would work for an annual salary of $1? Were these managers let down? You bet you. According to Earmon Javers (Politico; 4/3/2009) wrote that the president stated “my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks” when talking to a group of CEOs of various financial institutions as they tried explaining their high salaries. His administration did very little to stop the “pitchforks” when bus loads of people went on a tour of AIG homes sponsored by ACORN.

One must remember that Washington set the stage for an economic meltdown through the idea of a sub-prime mortgage. The idea that everyone has a right to own a home is, frankly, a bit flawed. Not everyone can afford to live in a $300,000 home. Many of our elected officials totally ignored the “hand writing on the wall” of a coming disaster. In 2004 a small group of courageous Congressmen and women attempted to change the course only to be out voted by people like Senator Harry Reid who basically said that there was nothing to worry about.

Since everyone is up in arms about AIG and other organizations receiving bonuses, let’s not forget that, as stated earlier, Congress started this mess and as I understand it, many of their staff members received a bonus and that all members of Congress received a pay raise. Why isn’t the public outraged? In my opinion, there are only two possible explanations. Either we are a bunch of sheep or the media did not do their job in reporting this. What do you think?

With the age of the Internet and fast transportation the world is shrinking. No longer can we simply compete at home but we must have a global presence. In order to do that we must hire the best of the best and they are not going to work for low salaries. If Obama and his dictatorial style continues (defining pay and compensation) many more firms will cease to exist as we know them. These bright individuals will start working for “boutique shops” where they can be justly rewarded for their labors.

In order to be competitive we must hire the best. This is why the NFL spends a great deal of money on top quality athletes for the hopes of winning the Super Bowl.

In this country you can go as far as your dreams take you. You too can be rewarded for your hard work. Anyone can become rich if they so choose.

After the brow beating that AIG took next came the firing of a CEO, the supposed takeover of banks, the strong governmental recommendation that a car company merge with Fiat, the prevention of early stimulus loan pay offs, handing controlling interest of a company to UAW membership, etc. all in the realm of righting the financial community and getting people back to work. The question is, what part of the Constitution gives the president the authority to carry out such actions? All of these plans are being formulated without debate and/or public input.

Seems like the time President Obama spends traveling the country he is doing it for one purpose and that is to get re-elected. All of his stops seem to have the same campaign feel and flavor that we saw last year. When he travels overseas this is nothing more than an apologetic tour. I never thought that I would see the day when a President would cower at the feet of a dictator like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Sure we have made some mistakes but we are still the greatest nation on earth. Our free enterprise system, constitution and our general way of life make a lot of people and nations extremely envious of the United States. They may **** us one day then something happens and who do they turn too? Other nations are mad and blame us for the market meltdown. I have a clue for you. Many international markets already had difficulty before our problems erupted. An easy way to think about his trips abroad is that if I were to come to your house and you were to bad mouth my family, we would have a serious and heated exchange then I would leave. We Americans are a family and don’t have anything to be apologetic for. He didn’t have a heated discussion nor did he leave-he just apologized.

With the release of information about our interrogation techniques did nothing but put our own intelligence community at risk to say nothing of the lives of the men and women in uniform who have been called to serve in war. Sometimes the need for the public to be informed can go a bit too far when it comes to national security. He could have quietly ended a controversial program without announcing it to the world which also emboldens our enemies. Of course I forgot that Obama feels we are no longer fighting a war on terrorism. I guess that he did not read the 9-11 report. He is showing his extreme inexperience when dealing with foreign policy. In particular he wants to sit around the proverbial campfire with the very people who have sworn to kill us and wipe us off the face of the earth. Oh! Did he tell you that we are not a Christian nation either. More apologizes.

One of Obama’s early campaign promises was to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Eric Holder went on a tour of Europe to try to persuade our European allies to take some of the “enemy combatants.” This, of course, was a big flop even though they were extremely vocal about the detention facility. Again, why should we apologize? Our European partners do not want anything to do with accepting detainees. So now what is he to do? Is he going to bring them to the continental United States? I doubt that there are any congressmen that want them in their back yard with access to our court system. Once again this shows his complete lack of understanding the big picture and the role that Guantanamo serves

President Obama and members of his administration have repeatedly stated that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for terrorist. This could be nothing further from the truth. The real tool for recruitment is a successful operation. Another way of putting this is that they have killed many people as they did on 9-11. When we are successful in infiltrating their networks, stopping their funding lines, intercepting communications, putting them behind bars (all part of the Patriot Act) and killing them severely hampers terrorist recruiting efforts. As a side note. Many on the left are against the Patriot Act even though there hasn’t been an attack in this country since 9-11.

What about his plan to nationalize the health care system? Obama has stated that he is not out to run or nationalize any organization but rather to compliment employer insurance programs. His intent is to model the system after Medicare. Let me get this straight-he wants to model a national program after a system that is poorly run and out of money. In the same breath, there is talk of taking the tax credit away from businesses that provides medical insurance. So when and if this were to happen there would be more people entered into a dysfunctional and broke system because businesses would no longer provide medical insurance. Who is going to pay for it? Obama just doesn’t get it.

Congress had a great idea about the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In order to pay for this program they increased the Federal tax on tobacco. This is a great idea from a public health standpoint. The rise in tax will cause many to quit. If people quit tobacco the government will not take in as much as they expected to cover the cost of SCHIP. Incidentally, many city and state governments are outlawing smoking in public venues. Again, the question must be asked. When the revenue dwindles, who will pick up the additional cost? You will in some other form of tax. Only this tax would probably be applied so that even non-tobacco users would be hit.

The stimulus package was touted as providing immediate relief. So far, as I understand, only about 6% has been spent. All or almost all of this has been spent on governmental programs. Obama has continually stated that he will either save or create four million new jobs. How can you quantify the word “save?” You can’t! It is an unrealistic statement that cannot be measured. Unfortunately, this “used car” sales rhetoric is what many citizens are buying into. (I need to apologize to used car salesmen) On the other hand he can create the jobs. However, most all of them will be in government not the public sector. A president cannot create jobs in the private sector he can only provide the atmosphere in which to do it. So far he seems reluctant to take a different approach. For instance, I would go out on the limb and state that if he were to abandon his coming tax policies for corporations who do business overseas, cut the capital gains tax, and provide a short term “no tax” policy for corporations that these same corporations would begin hiring and putting people back to work. Corporations would again be lucrative-the stock market would re-bound and many individual retirement accounts would be salvaged along with more income for the federal government through individual income tax (even at a low percentage). By taking these simple measures would be a win win situation and Washington would not have to print more money thus keeping down our national debt so our future generations would not have to pay the price of liberal stupidity. Right now it appears that they (Government) are throwing money down a “sink hole” or rather the proverbial “money pit.”

Nearly every day there seems to be a new or revised policy coming out of Washington that there is so much more that could be written here. The big question that should be asked is how much of your income are YOU, the tax payer willing to “donate” to Washington?

I had heard this fable many years ago and think that it might sum up the impact of government intrusion. I am sure that there are other variations.

A farmer in Russia was walking to town during a very cold winter morning. Along the path he sees a bird just lying on the ground. He picks the bird up and notices that it is still alive. He puts the bird under his coat and continues the trek towards town. He finally gets to town and wants to go in a store. Unfortunately, there is a no animal sign posted. He wonders what he should do. He looks around notices a huge fresh manure pile. The farmer digs a small hole at the top and places the bird in it and covers him up to his neck. After a short period of time; the bird warms and starts to sing. On the outskirts of town a wolf hears the singing bird and comes in to investigate and eventually eats the bird. There are three morals to this story. First; who ever puts you in is not necessarily your enemy. Whoever takes you out is not necessarily your friend. But above all when you are up to your neck do not sing. All of us should view the wolf as government. All they want to do is devour everything that we have and will have in future years. Obama is out for himself and bigger government. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing telling you that he will listen but then does what he was planning to do all along.

J.J. Jackson asked:


Baseball may be America’s favorite pastime, but liberals have a favorite pastime of their own; stretching and warping the Constitution. They’ve been at it so long that it has become a sport which they excel at and one at which daily practice is strongly encouraged, if not already mandated, for any aspiring leftist.

Of course, they only succeed in this pursuit when discussing the Constitution amongst themselves. When they journey out into the real world they run into people like myself who have spent a lot of time discussing how they distort and down right lie about what is in the document that established our current government. When they try to engage in their favorite sport with normal Americans who are not willfully blind as to what the Constitution says and have a grasp of the English language beyond that of a first grader, they fail miserably with their spin which always leads to interesting, if not ignorant, slogans, rants and shout-fests.

Rep. John “Cut and Run” Murtha may just be finding out that he and his liberal brethren have stretched the Constitution as far as the Constitution is willing to stretch even with a healthy suspension of logic, history and basic English however. Last week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered Rep. Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case brought against him by Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich relating to his unwise, ignorant and self-serving comments about the marines in Haditha participating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes”. It is important to note that the case against these Marines has fallen apart.

Murtha’s defense, which was rejected so far by the judge, was that Murtha was immune from prosecution and even questioning about the incident because those comments were made while acting in his official role as a United States Representative. This is an apparent reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and his “interpretation” of what it says which might get by people unable to actually read the Constitution. But since I actually can, it isn’t going to fly with me and apparently not with the judge either.

For the record, Article I, Section 6 states in it’s entirety: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The long and the short of this section is that if you are an elected representative of the United States in either house of Congress you cannot be arrested while the Congress is in session, nor can you be arrested while traveling to or from said session. It also grants immunity from prosecution for any “speech” or “debate” that takes place on the floor by saying that they “shall not be questioned in any other Place”. Which would include a court of law. The exceptions to this are of course given as when the Representative or Senator commits a Felony, Treason or “Breach of the Peace”.

Notice there is no exemption for acting in your “official role” beyond these limited descriptions. It is important to note at this time that John “Our Troops Are Murderers” Murtha made the statements with regards to our soldiers and promulgated his charges at places other than during a “speech” or “debate” in the House such as at press conferences and on Chris Matthew’s television program.

So is he immune? Should he not be questioned? Should he just be free to continue to make these assertions? Not unless you really, really stretch the meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines by inserting language that isn’t there. Making such statements during Speeches and Debates in the House may be deplorable and anti-American in as much that they were made without evidence and to prejudice the case against the Marines to promote John Murtha’s delusions, but his despicable acts would be protected. However once he steps out of the Halls of Congress he has no more protection.

He is not being arrested either. This is a civil suit, not a criminal matter. So again, Article I, Section 6 does not apply. Now, if he refuses the order to comply he could be faced with an arrestable offense such as contempt of court. In such a case, he had better convince the House to remain in permanent session and always be in a constant state of travel to and from the Capitol when it is to avoid arrest.

You could also make a strong case that his words provided aid and comfort to the enemy since the Haditha incident was used by our enemies against America and freedom seeking Iraqis. And since Treason is a clear exemption to this clause as well as the first amendment I certainly would be looking over my shoulder if I were Mr. Murtha.

But it’s just the Constitution. Right? And since when do liberals actually care about what the Constitution actually says? Since when do Congressmen care that their power is not unlimited? So I am sure that John “Where’s My White Flag?” Murtha will continue to whine and twist and squirm in an attempt to avoid the truth.

All the while his fellow members of Congress can continue to their smoke screen to cover their own failures. They can run cover for him and promulgate abuses of their power by waging a dog and pony show over things Rush Limbaugh didn’t even say with regards to our troops who are serving bravely over in Iraq and slamming General Patraeus and calling our troops NAZIs, stupid and anything else that they can think of. All for what? In order to try and further convince moonbats who naively believe that the troops really do agree with their stance on the war? Despite the fact that they are continually signing up and even re-upping to serve in a time of war for a mission the liberals detest so much?

Perhaps we are finally getting to a point where the Constitution has been stretched as far as it can be by the left to support their ideas and goals. But even if it has, I doubt they will stop trying to stretch it even further. At which point it is only a matter of whether it will snap back like a rubber band and leave a massive welt or completely break.

God help us if it is that latter

hasan yahya asked:


The Zionist Lobby at work in the USA Congress!

Hasan Yahya, Ph.D

The power of the Zionist Lobby in directing American foreign as well as local policies are debated for a long time, the AIPAC denies its involvement, Today, a Washington Post editorial ‘Blame the Lobby’ (3/12) offered a ridiculous critique of the Charles W. Freeman debacle — which ended on Tuesday with Mr. Freeman withdrawing his nomination for chairman of the National Intelligence Council.  Mr. Freeman, formerly chairman of the Middle East Policy Council,  is known for his strong criticism of Israeli policies against Palestinians — and claims he withdrew his nomination mostly as a result of heavy pressure from supporters of Israeli policies. (the Jewish Lobby)     

The Washington Post editorial page took issue with Mr. Freeman’s claim of the role of an influential Israeli lobby and rejected Freeman’s argument that there is an ‘inability to discuss Middle East policies opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.’    

WRITE! Team issued a report as an activist group  stands For Justice, Human Rights and International Law in Palestine. In the report  www.writetruth.org describing the “Lobby”and the unsuccessful nomination of former ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. As the chair for Obama administration’s National Intelligence Council.

Who was Mr. Freeman? He was a former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King “Abdullah the Great,” Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask — as numerous members of Congress had begun to do — whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.

What was his fault? He describes “an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman’s appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. What’s striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that “it is not permitted for anyone in the United States” to describe Israel’s nefarious influence.

Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister “Lobby” whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency” and which is “intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.” Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel — and his statement was a grotesque libel.

As proof of the vigorous US debate with Israel, the editorial cites examples such as US support for actual Palestinian elections, not providing Israel with weapons to provoke war with Iran, and the idea that the US can negotiate directly with Iran.  The Post editorial fails to acknowledge that the US raced weapons to Israel during the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon, signed a $30 billion agreement to promote Israel’s regional defense — and played a central role in disrupting the previous Palestinian unity government.  More recently, the Obama administration is seeking to tie Gaza aid to a recognition of Israel without reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian state.   

The Post also makes the incredulous statement that two Israeli governments have been forced from power because of disagreement with the US over Israeli settlement policy — even though the settlements doubled during the Clinton administration and continued unimpeded during the Bush II administration. 

For readers anywhere in this world support the cause For Justice, Human Rights and International Law in Palestine. WRITE! Team and the writer urge all to send this letter to let  the Washington Post editorial page  letters@washpost.com know that while one may disagree with Mr. Freeman’s assessment, its own tirade on this matter, sorely lacking in factual analysis certainly does not pass the credibility test. And the Zionist Lobby role in the unsuccessful nomination of Mr Freeman should be known for Americans. We have the right to ask: For how long American government remains far from justice when it comes to Muslim, Arab and Palestinian human rights? (759 words) 

Philip Yaffe asked:


What you are about to read will probably sound familiar. Indeed, it has been said many times before. However, I believe this formulation is original and may help you better apply it in your marketing communication. I immodestly call it Yaffe’s Law.

Yaffe’s Law

If you give people what they want first, then they are likely to accept anything else you want them to have. If you give them what you want first, chances are they won’t accept anything at all.

This is simply the classic principle that you should write from the reader’s point of view. And of course we all do this. Or do we?

How often do we interpret writing from the reader’s point of view as telling people: “What I have to say will be of benefit to you, so you should pay close attention”? When we do this, we are in fact writing from our point of view, not theirs. We may sincerely believe that our message is important and beneficial to our potential readers. But unless they agree—and agree almost immediately—the argument is lost.

We have all been guilty of such self-serving logic, and some of us do it more often than we would like to imagine. This is why this new formulation of the classic principle is potentially so useful. It forcefully reminds us that the readers are king. And like royalty they must be served first. Only after readers have sampled what we have on offer and find it palatable will they be truly inclined to listen to what we want to say. Assimilate it. And hopefully act on it.

The power of Yaffe’s Law lies in the fact that it is more than just a reminder. It is in fact a formula for ensuring that you will always write from the reader’s point of view. The trick is first to apply the formula, then check how well you have applied it—and, if necessary, reapply it.

The formula consists of three steps:

1. Determine what your readers really want to know, rather than what you want to say.

2. Give this to them–first.

3. Link what you want to say to what they really want to know.

Here are a few examples of how Yaffe’s Law works in practice.

Corporate Image Brochure

I was once commissioned to write a corporate image brochure. Two things are certain about these expensive, glossy booklets:

• Almost all companies of any size feel compelled to produce them.

• Virtually no one ever reads them.

By applying the formula, I created a brochure that people not only read. They called the company to request additional copies to give to friends, clients and professional colleagues!

How? I started from the assumption that no one would want to read anything about the company itself. So I asked myself: What things does the company do that people might really want to read about?

The company’s basic activity was producing vaccines. We are all naturally interested in health and virtually everyone knows the importance of vaccination. Here were already two things people might want to read about.

I was able to define seven areas of the company’s activities that could be naturally attractive to potential readers. However, it didn’t stop there. If all this interesting information were mixed up with company publicity, people would still probably not read it despite their natural inclination to do so.

The brochure was therefore laid out in seven double-page spreads, i.e. each of the seven areas of activity would be allotted two facing pages. However, the text would be rigorously segregated.

• Theory

The left side would be pure science; the company’s name would never be mentioned.

• Practice

The right side would explain how the company used the science to produce vaccines.

In short, I gave the readers what they wanted first (scientific information), then what the company wanted them to have second (company information).

When I proposed this to the company, the reaction was one of shock. “You mean people could read the brochure left side only and never ever see our name?” Exactly. But having learned about the basic science, wouldn’t they naturally want to learn how the company was using the science?

It took a while for management to accept the idea, but finally they did. When the brochure was ready, they couldn’t print enough of them.

Of course, not all companies would be suitable for this particular type of corporate image brochure. The important thing here is not the specific structure of this specific brochure, but the thinking process that led to it.

Stand Specific Video

I have done considerable work for pharmaceutical companies. This often included attending medical congresses. The first couple of times I did this, I noted something strange.

Pharmaceutical companies regularly erect exhibition stands to inform specialist doctors about new drugs and new applications of older drugs. I noted that many of the stands had several video monitors at their edges running videotapes. I observed the behavior of the doctors. The vast majority of them watched the tape for only a minute or two, then went away.

I asked an international marketing director why he was using these monitors and tapes. “To attract attention to our stand,” he said. “But the doctors stay in front of the monitor only a couple of minutes, then leave.” “Yes, but they were attracted to our stand. They know we are here and may come back.”

Frankly, this didn’t make much sense to me, but being young and inexperienced I accepted it. A couple of years later, when I felt I knew better what I was doing, I made a suggestion.

The videotapes ran anywhere from 10 – 15 minutes, then automatically recycled. The problem was, doctors who began watching after the tape had started never knew how long they would have to wait for it to finish and restart. Moreover, hardly any were likely to stand in front the video monitor for 15 minutes or more, even if they had known how long the presentation was.

The tapes were so long because they had not been conceived for medical congresses, but for a totally different purpose. They were used simply because they already existed.

I suggested making a “stand-specific videotape”, which would concentrate all key information about the company’s product into no more than 90 seconds. The fact that the tape ran only 90 seconds and then automatically recycled would be prominently posted, so that the doctors would know exactly how much time they were being asked to invest in it.

Consider the benefits:

1. Virtually all doctors who started to watch the tape stayed for it to recycle.

2. Because they got all the key points, many who wanted more detailed information immediately came onto the stand.

3. Those who were interested but were short of time probably came back later.

4. Even those who were not certain they were interested nonetheless went away with a complete picture of what the company’s product was all about.

In short, virtually 100% effectiveness!

There was no way to gauge the effectiveness of the previous system. But if it had been as much as 10%, I would have been shocked.

Interactive Stand Animation System

Another thing I noticed at medical congresses. Doctors would come onto the stand, pick up the brochures and scientific papers, put them in the congress bags, then move on to the next stand and do the same thing. The problem is, pharmaceutical companies could never really tell if doctors actually read the materials they take away. Estimates are that up 95% of it ends up in the hotel’s wastepaper basket without ever being opened.

Using the method of Yaffe’s Law, a few years ago a colleague and I created what we call the Interactive Stand Animation System. It is applicable not only to medical congresses, but virtually every other kind of professional trade show.

There is not room here to describe how it works, but I can tell you its results.

With this system, you are certain that your brochures, data sheets, etc., are being read, because people read them right in front of you on the stand. Even better, they actually study the documents, then discuss, debate and compare notes with their colleagues. At the same time, they provide you with valuable market research information that would be difficult to obtain in any other way. This can be very important for determining the best ways of presenting your products, which features to emphasis, which aspects may require change for later versions, etc.

I once described this system to the international marketing director of a major pharmaceutical company. He was very sceptical. Basically he said: “I have been in this business for nearly 30 years and I have attended dozens and dozens of medical congresses. What you are telling me just isn’t possible.” He maintained this position until he went to a congress where we were running the system for another company. His reaction: “I’ve seen it, but I still don’t believe it. I never would have imagined anything like this could possibly be true.”

But it was.

Editor’s Note

Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal and a marketing communication consultant. He currently teaches a course in good writing and good speaking in Brussels, Belgium. In the “I” of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like A professional, his recently published book, is available from Story Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers.be) and Amazon (amazon.com).

DR.P.SAKTHIVEL asked:


Parliamentary democracy was adopted in India after a purposive and elaborate debate among the founding fathers of India’s constitution. The members of the constituent assembly adopted the constitution with the conviction that it best suited to the heterogeneous character of Indian society, while the world expressed scepticism about India’s ability to operate a democratic system successfully 1.

Parliament has three important functions-to make laws, to be a forum for deliberations on important issues of governance and to enforce accountability of the executive to the people. Constitutional authorities such as Sir William Black Stone consider the law-making powers of the Parliament as the true index of Parliamentary sovereignty. Further, he says that the Parliament has “Sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal”2.

Indian Parliament, in the early years, discharged its function of charting out the path of social engineering with the utmost sense of responsibility, in the process of earning the admiration and respect of the people3. Healthy Debate, discussions, more number of sittings, spending more time for legislative business are considered as key features of Parliamentary democracy is now being overshadowed by uproar, chaos, conflicts and forced adjournments even for unimportant reasons and issues. Further, in the history of the Indian Parliament that a Parliament session was abandoned, the monsoon session of the Parliament in 2008, or frozen for reasons that are unclear.

Many MPs don’t attend the house for days together; the clever ones sign the attendance registered and slip out, ensuring that they don’t miss out on their daily allowance even if they miss crucial debates. Many others feel the ***** of consciousness and turn up in the house and do nothing: In the present 14th Lok Sabha 32 MPs are still observing a vow of silence, waiting to participate in their maiden debate; 37 MPs are yet to table a question. Many more take their seats in the august house just to add to the decibel levels without contributing in any way to debates or discussions. There was general opinion that government, opposition and other political parties are not giving due importance to Parliament.

There has been a trend of decline in terms of the number and duration of sittings of Parliament after the period of the first Lok Sabha during 1952-1957. This trend of deterioration has been not only in terms of sittings or ‘hours of labour’ but also the quality and length of the debates and the legislative outcomes. There were 677 sittings (3,784 hours) during the first Lok Sabha (1952-57). This is the highest recorded count of the number of sittings of the House of the People. The Rajya Sabha, meanwhile, had 565 sittings during 1952-57. During the period 1971-1977 (when Parliament had its tenure extended by a year), the Lok Sabha had 613 sittings (4,071 hours).

This, however, cannot be considered to have been a positive trend, as it included the period of the Emergency. The average number of sittings of the Lok Sabha during 1952-1957 was 135 days a year. In 1956, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha sat for 151 and 113 days respectively. This is the highest number of sittings of Parliament till today. In 2006, Parliament sat for 77 days. In 2007, however, this declined in the Lok Sabha to 66 days, marking the lowest number of days in the last few years with the exception of 2004, which was an election year.

In 2008 Parliament sat for only 46 days. This trend is disheartening, and will inevitably erode public trust over the institution. There is a long-pending proposal that the minimum number of days of sitting for the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha be fixed as 120 and 100 respectively, so as to ensure that Parliament is able to transact its business and carry forward its responsibilities in an optimal manner3.

The recently concluded second part of the 14th session of the 14th Lok Sabha witnessed a loss of nearly 21 hours in interruptions and adjournments. But Parliament adopted a resolution unanimously condemning the heinous attack in Mumbai by terrorists4. It is significant to note that during this session total of eight bills were passed in Lok Sabha in just over 15 minutes. These included five bills in the revised list of business and four under the supplementary agenda circulated later5. Some of the bills rejected by the Standing Committee were also passed in the Parliament. Similarly Rajya Sabha had also passed 3 bills in about 20 minutes, without any proper discussions in the Parliament. Lok Sabha had no time to discuss the bills because it met 46 days only, the lowest in the history of the Parliamentary democracy and a far cry from the norm of having atleast 100 sittings6.

The quality of debate is linked to the quality of MPs, says constitution expert Subash Kashyap. In the first Lok Sabha, lawyers and barristers formed the largest professional group members, this automatically ensured speakers of a certain quality such as Jawaharlal Nehru and N C Chatterjee (father of present Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee) to name a couple. In one such debate, he recalls, there was much hair-splitting over which word-incite or provoke-should be used for a particular legislation.

In the 1950s, even bitterly contested issues never degenerated into abuse leading to chaos. MPs saw one another as political rivals, not enemies. In those days several lesser-known MPs specialized in a particular topic and were heard with seriousness. For instance, Uma Charan Pattnaik, an independent MP from Orissa’s Ganjam constituency in the first two Lok Sabha elections, “He was an expert on defence matters. When he spoke there was pin-drop silence,”.

Experts say the quality of debate declined after the third Lok Sabha. The process of democratization has created a new crop of leaders whose intellectual and political capabilities are below par. “They prefer to shout than debate”, as pointed out by political scientist Imtiaz Ahmed. Besides, as a 2004 study by Bangalore-based independent watchdog Public Affairs Centre show, 23.2% of those elected to Parliament face criminal charges ranging from murder to extortion and ****. Such MPs are unlikely to be good debaters7.

It is worthwhile to note that, according to India Today report8, published recently, some 32 MPs, so far, never participated in any debate in the Parliament, which includes senior most members also. While debating the issues such as poverty and hunger in Parliament, especially the House of People, the attendance was very low. On May 5, 2007 only six members were present, initially, in the House of People, which discussed the eradication of hunger in India. The attendance was less than one per cent. Later six more members joined in the discussion. Totally 12 members attended the discussion, of which 7 belongs to Congress, 2 from Left parties, and one each from BJP, BJDand TDP12. Similarly, in the month of December 2007 the on going National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme was discussed in the Lok Sabha, and this time the attendance was 16 only. Because of lack of quorum the speaker adjourned the house.

It is significant as well as worthwhile to mention here that, in the 2007 Global Hunger Index (GHI) out of 118 countries list, India placed in a dismantle position of 94th rank- behind Ethiopia. Ethiopia worked better at reducing hunger than India did. Pakistan ranks ahead of India, too, at 88. China logs in at 47. All our South Asian neighbours do better than India on this index, except Bangladesh. None of these countries boasts an economy growing at 9 per cent a year. When the sensex fall of several hundred points the Finance Minister comes forward and soothes the market nerves. But no one, the representatives, came forward or reacted to calm the nation when India hit the 94th rank in the GHI9.

Everybody accepted the fact that the Parliament has not been functioning up to the expectations of the people and the people have also gradually loosing their faith over the system as well as Parliamentary democracy. The following are some of the facts about how the Parliament worked in the last year, 2008:

1. Union government spent Rs.440 Cr. for conducting business of the Parliament.

2. Rs.23,083 being spent for conducting one minute of the business of the Parliament.

3. Parliament met only 46 days in the year 2008, which is lowest in the history of the Parliamentary democracy .

4. Speaker and Prime Minister speech were also disturbed.

5. Speaker left Lok Sabha in a huff because of unable to maintain the order of the house.

6. Prime Minister was not allowed to introduce his Council of Ministers.

7. 32 MPs, so far, never raised any issues or participated in any debate in the Parliament.

8. 37 MPs never submitted any kind of questions, in Question Hour or Zero Hour, in the Parliament.

9. Lok Sabha passed, in December 2008, 8 bills in 17 minutes without any proper debate.

10. Rajya Sabha had also passed 3 bills in 20 minutes.

11. Bill rejected by the Standing Committee of the Parliament was also passed.

Quality of debate and discussions are the hall mark of Parliamentary Democracy seems to be unavailable at present. Everyone agrees there’s a need for more informed debate in Parliament. Imtiaz Ahmad suggested that rookie MPs should schooled in the art of parliamentary affairs. A short course can help10. Strict enforcement of Code of Conduct for MPs, electing representatives with some professional background or formal education, are essential for proper working of Parliament in India. More than any measures sense of commitments from: i) people representatives, ii) leaders of all the political parties will make the Parliament to work more meaningfully and purposefully.

Reference:

1. Somnath Chatterjee, “Six Decades of Parliamentary Democracy”, The Hindu, August 15, 2007.p.4.

2. P.C.Alexander, “Raising a Question on Question Hour”, Deccan Chronical, May 20, 2008.p.6.

3. India Today, Jan. 19, 2009.p.65; Vinod Bhanu, “Abandoning a Parliament Session”, The Hindu, Sep.13, 2008.p.12.

4. The Hindu, Dec. 24, 2008.p.12.

5. The Hindu, Dec. 24, 2008.p.13.

6. Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.

7. Avijit Ghosh, “Where’s the debate in this din of democracy?”, Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.

8. India Today, Jan.21, 2009.p.18.

9. P.Sakthivel, “Indian Parliamentary Democracy in Turmoil”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol.LXIX, No.3. July-Sep. 2008.pp.519-529.

10. Times of India, Dec. 28, 2008.p.8.

Garry Gamber asked:


The filibuster as a political delaying tactic has been a part of the American political process since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Though it was not used in the early years of the nation, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times since the 1840’s. Here are a few of the famous filibusters from our political history.

The U.S. Constitution does not limit the length or nature of debate on the floors of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The House has since adopted rules which limit the length of debate since the House has a very large number of Representatives. But the smaller Senate has always upheld the right of a recognized Senator to debate an issue for as long as he or she wishes to hold the floor. Senate Rule 19 and Rule 22, the cloture rule adopted in 1917, create some guidelines for conducting a debate and for closing the debate when it becomes lengthy.

Senator Henry Clay

In 1841 Senator Henry Clay proposed a bank bill that was opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun who began a lengthy, seemingly unending, rebuttal. Calhoun basically created the modern filibuster. Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in order to close debate on the issue. Clay’s colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, rebuked Clay and accused him of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.

Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960’s the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential “tyranny of the majority,” but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the “tyranny of the minority.”

Senate Rule 22

President Woodrow Wilson suggested that some limits be placed on the unlimited debate concept. In 1917 the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22, now known as the “cloture” rule. The new Rule 22 provided the mechanism to close out debate on a legislative bill and bring the bill up for a vote if cloture was approved by 67% of the Senate. The 67% requirement remained in effect until 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to allow a 60% agreement to invoke cloture.

Cloture Rule 22 was tested in 1919 when the Senate was asked to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. The treaty was debated and filibustered, but a 67% majority voted to end the filibuster and to bring the treaty to a vote.

Senator Huey Long

Senator Huey Long, the fiery and colorful senator from Louisiana, made the filibuster famous between 1932 and 1935 when he utilized it several times to stall legislation that he considered unfair to the poor. Long frustrated his opponents and entertained the Senate gallery by reading Shakespeare, reciting shrimp and oyster recipes and talking about “pot-likkers.” An amendment to Senate Rule 19 later required that debate on legislation be germane to the issue being debated.

On June 12, 1935, Senator Long engaged in his most famous filibuster. A bill was before the Senate to eliminate the provision for the Senate to confirm senior National Recovery Act employees. Senator Long opposed the bill because he didn’t want his political adversaries in Louisiana to obtain lucrative N.R.A. jobs. Senator Long spoke for 15 hours and 30 minutes running well into the evening and early morning hours with senators dozing at their desks. Long read and analyzed each section of the Constitution, a document which he claimed had become “ancient and forgotten lore” under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.

After the reading of the Constitution Senator Long offered to give advice to the remaining senators on any subject of their choosing. No senator took Long up on his offer but the gallery patrons began sending notes to the floor for Senator Long to extemporize on. That kept Long going into the early hours of the morning. At 4 a.m. Long yielded the floor in order to use the restroom and his proposal was defeated.

James Stewart brought more fame to the filibuster when he played the role of Senator Jefferson Smith in the 1939 film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Stewart’s character launched into a filibuster in response to an attempt to ridicule him.

Senator Wayne Morse

Senator Wayne Morse from Oregon was called “The Tiger of the Senate” and served in the Senate under 5 Presidents. In 1952 Senator Morse left the Republican Party, claiming independent status, when he objected to sections of the party platform and Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. Senator Morse claimed that the Republican Party had left him.

On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette.

Senator Morse is remembered through numerous colorful stories. For example, Clare Booth Luce, former U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Italy had to resign her appointment when she made the insulting but funny remark that her problems with Senator Morse began when he was kicked in the head by a horse.

Senator Strom Thurmond

About 9 p.m. on August 28, 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond rose before the Senate and announced, “Mr. President, I rise to speak against the so-called voting rights bill, H.R. 6127.” His own staff had not been informed about Senator Thurmond’s intentions to filibuster the bill, but they knew something was up when they saw Thurmond gathering considerable reading material.

Senator Thurmond had prepared himself for a long filibuster on the Senate floor. Earlier in the day he had spent time in the Senate steam room, dehydrating himself so that he would absorb all the water he drank without having to visit the restroom. His wife packed a steak sandwich lunch for him and she stayed in the family gallery throughout the night. Thurmond brought a quantity of malted milk tablets and throat lozenges from his office.

Senator Thurmond began his filibuster by reading each state’s election statutes. He later read and discussed an opinion by Chief Justice Taft. He also read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His staff, concerned for Senator Thurmond’s health, was finally successful in getting him to leave the floor.

After 24 hours and 18 minutes, a record that still stands, Senator Thurmond concluded his remarks with, “I expect to vote against the bill.” The bill was defeated.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia finished his address begun on the previous day, slightly more than 14 hours earlier. He filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which was debated by Byrd and others for 57 working days, including 6 Saturdays.

Senate President Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota needed 67 votes to be able to carry the motion for cloture. Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen, the always eloquent senator from Illinois procured the Republican votes necessary to pass the cloture motion. “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come,” he said. “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”

The final roll call vote on cloture resulted in 71 votes in favor and 29 votes opposed. It was the first time in history that cloture had been invoked on civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the most sweeping of its kind in our history.

Justice Abe Fortas

In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren notified President Lyndon Johnson that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. This move gave President Johnson time to nominate a successor since he was not planning to seek re-election as President. Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Warren. At the same time Johnson nominated Texas Appeals Court Justice Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas, a move that was designed to satisfy southern senators.

President Johnson counted on Senators Everett Dirksen and Richard Russell for their support of the nomination. When Abe Fortas testified at his own confirmation hearing, an unprecedented occurrence, it was revealed that Fortas worked uncomfortably closely with the White House staff and the President. Later it was learned that Fortas was being paid a large sum, privately, to teach an American University summer course. At this point Dirksen, Russell, and other senators withdrew their support.

Though the committee recommended confirmation of Justice Abe Fortas, a filibuster ensued on the Senate floor to block his confirmation, the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. On October 1, 1968, the Senate was unable to tally the 67 votes needed to invoke cloture and President Johnson withdrew the nomination.

The use of the filibuster has increased from 16 filibusters in the 19th century to 66 in the first half of the 20th century to 195 in the period from 1970 to 1995. It is likely that the filibuster will continue to play an important role in the American political process.

Alain Tanugi asked:


I think it was the Financier Leo J. Hindery Jr who once said: ‘I think there are people, including myself at certain times in my career, who because of their uniqueness warrant whatever the market will bear.’ But the questions beg HOW much is too much? and Should macroeconomic woes slow CEO pay growth?

I recently read in the Associated Press that even as the economy slowed down in America “CEO pay still chugged to yet more dizzying heights last year.’ The top 10 highest paid CEOs took home a total of more than $500 million, but half of those companies saw huge drops in profitability at their companies.

One of the most exasperating things to shareholders and the public is when a CEO receives millions or tens of millions of dollars of compensation regardless of performance. This practice goes fundamentally against the culture of rewarding on the basis of ability and merit that underpins the free market system. Recent examples include: Marriott International chief J Willard Marriott Jr – his 2007 pay was $44m, up 22%, just six percentage points lower than Marriott’s stock price drop or Stan O’Neal, Merrill Lynch’s former boss, left with $159m after losing $8 billion.

Shareholders and politicians are advocating bringing in rules for companies that would allow shareholders to vote on executive pay. Executives in Europe have home far less compensation than their American counterparts in the past. But with leadership compensation in Europe on the rise, these pay increases have citizens in European nations deeply unsettled. The public indignation on both sides of the Atlantic has contributed to a unique political debate over what to do about excessive executive pay. Executive pay figures in Asia are still not as widely accessible as in Europe and America and it is difficult to compare. A recent study conducted by the CFA Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity said that reporting compensation of executives on an individual basis is the practice in the United States, Britain and Australia and is advocated by institutional investors worldwide. Prevailing regulations and practices in Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore however leave much to be desired.

Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission’s “Eurogroup” of finance ministers, recently called excessive pay a “social scourge” and demanded action. When L’Expansion, a French business magazine, calculated that pay for the country’s bosses went up 58% in 2007, the finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said it was “scandalous” and threatened regulation. Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, and Horst Köhler, president of Germany, have also denounced high pay.

New legislation the Netherlands will see the law setting EU500,000 as the level of annual salary or severance payment at which extra taxes must be paid. Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for legislation to curb pay, though its partner in government, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, has so far resisted. At the same time the European Commission is working on a response to the Eurogroup’s complaint.

Just how extreme IS executive pay in Europe? As European firms compete for global talent it certainly has risen substantially in the last 10 years. Foreign executives now run seven of the firms in France’s CAC 40 index and five of Germany’s DAX 30. American-style bonuses and long-term incentive plans are now commonplace.

However European firms still pay a fraction of what is paid to their counter parts in America. According to Hay Group, a management consultancy, the median European executive earns just 40% as much as his equivalent in America. It’s also notable that both American presidential candidates – John McCain and Barack Obama – have been making compensation a campaign issue.

There is an important difference though companies in Europe seem to be more determined than American ones to link compensation to performance. In America share grants are often not tied to performance, whereas European firms usually attach performance criteria to any share grants, typically depending on a comparison with a peer group. Dan Vasella, boss of Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical giant, and a favourite target of pay activists, earned SFr17m ($14m) in 2007, down 33% from 2006, because he missed his targets.

The extreme rise in European executive pay has sparked an intense debate in countries that have been characterised by a relatively strong sense of economic solidarity and impartiality in the past several decades. A July 2007 Financial Times/Harris public opinion poll found that over 60 percent of those surveyed in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain would like to see their government set caps on top business executive pay. In Germany, a 47 percent plurality supports pay caps.

In America, only 32 percent of the public supports an outright pay cap on executive earnings a recent poll shows. However 77 percent of Americans say corporate executives ‘earn too much.’ Some members of Congress have responded by introducing legislation to curb excessive pay through tax reform and giving shareholders the right to vote on pay packages.

I recently saw an interview with Sarah Anderson, who compiles the Executive Excess report on CEO pay on a yearly basis. She discusses some of the issues raised in this column in her interview and I recommend that you take some time to view it. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lKfRFhG0M.)

From what I have read and heard in the last year signs point to a strong possibility that meaningful reforms to rein in excessive executive compensation could be a prospect, as many political leaders in Europe and the United States seem to be finally catching up to the public uproar. It has to be said though that compensation is a complex issue. Different circumstances and industries dictate different packages and even severance pay may be justified if a change of control is the end goal. One would hope though that politicians would reject laws about pay, which are too widespread to be useful. Strict legislation might well compel leaders away from listed companies and create compensation packages even more complex-and so much more difficult to monitor.

Carol Forsloff asked:


 

Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.

Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.

At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.

We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.

Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in  Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.

Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.

Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the  Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues.  He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.

Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.