...what I read in the papes. And as always, some interesting material in today's release.
Going Nuclear
The arguments on the filibuster option in the Senate, and how it might be overturned -- the so-called 'nuclear option' -- sparked several articles in which it was held that people's opinions of the effectiveness of the Senate specifically, and politicians in general, are plummeting as a result of the conflict. There was general agreement that this drop is not a good thing, though some people said that it would rise as the Worlds Greatest Deliberative Body got past this train wreck. Some said that if the judicial filibuster was removed from the realm of possibility, then the dominant party (whomever it is) would run rampant, possibly choosing judicial candidates from the far reaches of the spectrum. Others felt that this is a moot point, as the nominees being selected reflect the desires of the President, and those won't change even if he has a lock on getting his nominees through the confirmation process.
I think that the assessment about public opinion is correct. Most people don't care what the Senate is up to, and when they engage in this kind of spectacle, they become even less interesting. We deserve better, but the downhill slide in civility has been happening for at least three presidents now, and seems to be accelerating. Its possible that it will end with another governmental shutdown.
As for the effect of a lack of a filibuster on presidential selection of nominees -- given the choice between two candidates, one more desirable than the second , but the second more likely to pass muster in the nomination process than the first, most politicians will go with the second candidate. If that constraint is removed, the nominee still has to be acceptable to the majority of voting Senators. The nominee can be a few degrees further out on the political spectrum than would otherwise be the case, but an astute politician is not going to nominate someone who appeals only to the fringes. The nominee has to be electable, unless all you're trying to do is make a point, or set up the other party to be the bad guys.
Incidentally, when did a ‘yes or no’ or ‘aye or nay’ vote become an ‘up or down’ vote?
Horsing Around
Even someone whose knowledge of the details of horse races begins and ends with novels by Dick Francis (which is to say: me) had to be stunned and exhilarated by the performance of Afleet Alex in the Preakness’s final moments. For decades, my sole awareness of the Preakness was as a plot device in Seven Days in May. Now I’ll have that blood-pulsing moment when that horse stumbled, fell to its knees, was yanked by main force back up by its jockey – and then raced ahead to win.
Nickel and Diming Writ Large
An article in the New York Times Business section concerning the financial problems of American Airlines notes that Philip Purcell, the chief executive of Morgan Stanley and a member of the board of AMR, American Airlines’ parent organization, felt free to bill the company for $14,000 in travel expenses. Mr. Purcell earned twenty-two million dollars last year. As the author of the piece, Gretchen Morgenson, put it: "Do members of the executive class pay for anything they use or consume? Is it not enough that they make piles of money? Does every single product or service have to show up on some shareholders tab?"
Cloning
Assuming the news from Korea is true, significant progress has been made in the creation of cloned human material. This material, from what I read, is intended for use with therapeutic procedures. One article said that this event makes the United States position, and its restrictions on cloning activities, appear outdated and backward; additionally, it puts US scientists at a disadvantage.
I don’t agree, entirely. I think that it is important that we have a standard for acceptable uses of cloning technology. Fans of science fiction have for years seen the good and bad that can come out of the cloning process (you may recall that even Obi-Wan was effective in The Clone Wars). If the process works, or if it leads to a process that meets the popular definition of cloning, we will need a standard to help us look past the immediate moment and see whether the process appears to be a generally good thing, one which should be treated with caution, or one which should be proscribed.
I think that’s enough pontificating for right now.
1 comment:
I notice that there is little US coverage of the big scandal in Canada which will likely bring down the government next month. There has been some excellent media manoevering going on! It all came down this week to one vote...a back bencher who left the Conservative Party some time ago, and now voted against it. Very exciting! A train wreck in slow motion!
Post a Comment