Centerfield

Jon Kay alerted us to the Unitarian Jihad. There is now a name generator

Respectfully,

Brother Gatling Gun of Reasoned Discussion

Posted by: rickheller at April 29, 2005 11:24 AM

I had asked on a previous threat if anyone knew if a filibuster could be used to block the move to end the filibuster. The answer was that senate rule changes are not able to be filibustered, and that a simple majority is required for a senate rule change. Yesterday I heard on the radio that senate rule changes require a 2/3 majority, as the rules now stand, but that the Republicans were asserting that they could end the filibuster for judicial nominees with a simple majority. I looked at the senate rule for making changes to the senate rules, and it says nothing about the number of votes required to do so. I need clarity. I can't function without this knowledge. My wife and kids don't even recognize me. Please help.

Posted by: WHQ at April 29, 2005 11:36 AM

Here's the rule I found:

Standing Rules of The Senate
RULE V

SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES

1. No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.

2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

Posted by: WHQ at April 29, 2005 11:39 AM

The point I have heard is that the President of the Senate is able to rule on whether or not a 2/3 vote is required for this particular change of rules. That means that Dick Cheney will rule that a simple majority is required for this rule change. It cannot be filibustered.

Posted by: AH at April 29, 2005 12:07 PM

Don't feel bad about it, WHQ, the Senate's been arguing variations of the subject for well over a century. For those who say you can't do it, there's precedent otherwise going back as far as 1890. The short answer is that they can vote to waive a rule requirement on a temporary basis by a simple majority vote, and that there are various procedural methods to force a vote to defang a filibuster.

If you really must torture yourself, read this.

Posted by: Tully at April 29, 2005 12:11 PM

Just read it on the hopper. Clear as an unmuddied lake, as a summer sky of deepest azure. Actually, I'll go out and get the Cliff's Notes or the Reader's Digest version. Thanks, Tully.

Posted by: WHQ at April 29, 2005 12:52 PM

More insiders against Bolton.

It's pretty clear that he's unpopular not just among Democrats, but among a lot of Republicans. He's the sort of man Will Rogers never met.

Posted by: rickheller at April 29, 2005 02:49 PM

There's an interesting thread over at Drum's washingtonmonthly.com. He asks his readers to identify central tenets of liberalism. As one would expect, there's a dirth of commentary pertaining to the use of military force. Perhaps the Democrat v. Republican distinction reduces itself to man's basic "flight or fight" syndrome-with the Dems representing our need to flee.

Not exactly the stuff of Braveheart.

Posted by: kreiz at April 29, 2005 03:07 PM

AH, as far as I know that's right on the rules change. Cheney would rule the filibuster out of order, a Dem would object, and then there would be a vote on whether to sustain Cheney's ruling. That vote would require a simple majority to pass (and could not be filibustered).

- Charging RINO
www.chargingrino.com

Posted by: Charging RINO at April 29, 2005 03:41 PM

I was able to make two college baseball games this week, and got to see that marvelous catch by Matt Brown at the OU/WSU game close up and personal, as I always sit on the outfield hill (they don't let us barbecue in the stands). The one they've been showing on ESPN SportsCenter, where Borwn goes backwards over the wall to make the catch. WSU won 7-5. The next night they lost to #5 NU, 4-2. Oh well.

Posted by: Tully at April 29, 2005 03:56 PM

OU is Oklahoma, right? I saw a college baseball game on ESPN the other night, and they were playing on a field with an artificial turf infield and a grass outfield. That's some f^&$#ked up sh$%+ right there. :-)

Seriously, I suppose it make sense to have a "true bounce" infield for grounders and have grass in the outfield so there aren't too many ground ball triples. But it looked peculiar.

Posted by: bk at April 29, 2005 04:22 PM

LOL--that's Eck Stadium alright, about a mile up the road from me. It's actually pretty common for college fields to have Astroturf infields and grass outfields. Funding for full Astroturf fields is tough to get for college teams, and the equipment to manage drainage from Astroturf isn't cheap either. And since the fields don't get "dual usage" for other sports, the grass can be maintained.

WSU is 35-14 so far this season, kind of an "off" year for them but it's a very young team with few juniors and seniors. They beat OU (Oklahoma) Tuesday 7-5, lost to Nebraska Wednesday 4-2, and last night OU beat Nebraska 5-1.

The outfield hill is a tradition around here. We haul in grills, coolers, etc. Why tailgate when there are picnic tables on The Hill?

Posted by: Tully at April 29, 2005 04:50 PM

since we're talking baseball, how 'bout them Orioles!

Posted by: JD at April 29, 2005 04:53 PM

Is this guy near you?

Posted by: PSoTD at April 29, 2005 05:00 PM

You're just gloating because the closest MLB team to me is the (5-17) Royals, aren't you, JD? But hey, they've got an eight game streak going! Losing streak, that is....

And people wonder why I stick to the (35-14) local college team. ;-)

Posted by: Tully at April 29, 2005 05:41 PM

liberals and war in the past 100 years
WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam (was a joint venture - mostly started by Dulles but Johnson escalated it), Dominican Republic (early 1900's and the 60's), Kosovo

Republicans and war in the past 100 years - Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama (1400 civilians killed to capture a guy who made weekly visits to the Officers Club on a US military base), Nicaragua(contras and don't tell me there wasn't any US involvement cause I have a cousin who's a loadmaster on a cargo plane and they made numerous supply drops), Lebanon (or the Marines as sitting ducks), Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

To wit - the basis of liberal participation in war is the same as the Republican. the projection of military power to achieve goals relating to American interests.

gasp.. tho not hard to grasp

although I think going into Kosovo was better than taking the people of Kuwait out of the hands of one dictatorship and returning them to the other dictatorship. I won't even go into Iraq. Bad for my usually low blood pressure.

Posted by: Marcus at April 30, 2005 04:24 AM

and my rant fo the week - so how come no one has taken Bush on regarding his stating that he was not an expert in econmics. Doesn't he have an MBA???? last I checked with my brother (an MBA) one had to get a pretty good dose of econmics. Another fine example of alumni affirmative action going to waste.

anyway we don't expect him to be an expert, just passably knowledgeable. now it's coming back to me...didn't he say that he wasn't an expert one or two more times?
another Rove escape hatch for the president no doubt. When befuddled just tell the handpicked press with their hand-picked questions "I'm not an expert"

Posted by: Marcus at April 30, 2005 04:29 AM

Marcus;
So are you suggesting liberals fight bigger and better wars?

And as for Bush and the MBA. Don't confuse a degree in Business with an understanding of Economics. Similar to saying a Journalist knows English literature.

Posted by: c3 at April 30, 2005 11:00 AM

I lived in Bal'mer for a while, so how about them O's? Don't follow them much anymore, though.

Depressingly, in baseball here, the Big Longhorns got pounded by the Profesora's podunk nowhere team.....

Posted by: Jon Kay at April 30, 2005 12:42 PM

Rush Limbaugh insults and abuses moderate people of faith--will we respond or go along?

Lot's of discussion on my blog, others, about what to do about these anti-American statements.

FP

Posted by: Faithful Progressive at April 30, 2005 12:51 PM

What Chris said. Anything more than what's directly required for their jobs they will forget as soon as they possibly can. Makes their heads hurt. The B-school translations of BBA and MBA are "Basic Bull***t Artist" and "Master Bull***t Artist."

Posted by: Tully at April 30, 2005 01:23 PM

As a fan of a "podunk nowhere team," Jon, I say yee-hah Profesora and bwa ha ha! Them 'Horns is too cocky.

Posted by: Tully at April 30, 2005 02:07 PM

Yep, especially the better part.
WW2 - geared up industry to produce materiel for the war effort. Spent what it took, asked civilians to sacrifice. No tax cuts.

Today - no sense of sacrifice from this administration to pay or help with the war effort.
Thus the war drains the treasury at an incredible rate while tax cuts and tax shelters continue to flourish. Industry? Took 2 years to catch up with some of the armor requirements of our ground soldiers. There are still shortages in medical supplies, ammunition, etc.
The GOP also turned away Dem efforts to add 1.8 billion to the VA budget to deal with PTSD the past month. That's an utter shame.

as far as english lit and journalism, in my 28 years of experience in the media lot of journalists, TV and Print are english majors.
You expect a certain amount of literacy from a REAL journalist. You expect a certain amount of background knowledge. You should expect some basic understanding of micro and macro economics from an MBA. Given that every endeavor Bush entered into was a failure, except for the HEAVILY subsidized TX Rangers,

Posted by: Marcus at May 1, 2005 03:30 AM

Given that every endeavor Bush entered into was a failure, except for the HEAVILY subsidized TX Rangers

Every? Not much point in pursuing this. Posted by: c3 at May 1, 2005 10:27 AM

Yes, EVERY, c3,

Don't forget, he had to wait for a tidal Republican year, 1994, to win the Texas governorship in a rock ribbed Republican state.
Don't forget, he lost the 2000 race by half a million votes, and had to get his daddy's judges, (and his baby brother's state machine) to bail him out.
Don't forget that he lost the Senate in his first six months. Don't forget that if he was any good at protecting the US from terrorism, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Don't forget that he owes his "gains:" to DeLay's gerrymandering and Democratic retirements.
Don't forget that we're drowning in red ink caused by his tax cuts, and the Iraq quagmire is deepening by the day.
But I'm sure he'll succeed at one thing--he'll beat out Buchannan and Grant for Worst President Ever.

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 1, 2005 12:13 PM

Marcus, I expect a certain amount of basic literacy from journalists, but I don't expect advanced expertise in Chaucerian symbolism and semiotics. Expecting advanced knowledge of economics from business administration grads is much the same. It's like expecting advanced knowledge of nuclear physics from electrical engineers. They are different (if tangentially related) disciplines.

Re: wartime financing, some scalar comparisons--the Civil War caused the national debt to increase 4200% in five years. World War I caused the national debt to increase by roughly 1000%. World War II caused a boost of about 600%. The national debt since 9-11-2001 has increased by about 30%.

There are always material shortages in wartime. The bottleneck isn't money or will. It's manufacture and distribution.

Posted by: Tully at May 1, 2005 12:30 PM

Did I say 35-14? I meant 37-14.

Posted by: Tully at May 1, 2005 02:39 PM

Did I say 37-14? I meant 38-14.

Posted by: Tully at May 1, 2005 07:11 PM

You mean runaway media story! I actually heard a woman interviewed on Today proclaiming this woman (Jennifer Wilbanks) had victimized the whole nation. Hello! Who is responsible for the reaction of 1)law enforcement to an apparently well-to-do presumed victim (the jilted groom-to-be);and 2)the ever-prurient national media?

Posted by: Tom Chadwell at May 2, 2005 11:44 AM

Just having a chance to read thru all of these postings and figured I'd comment on the MBA/Economics comment. There are a LOT of us with MBA's who do not consider ourselves experts on Economics. I'd have to say I'm with the President on that one.

C3 had a great point...it's like a journalist who says they aren't an expert in English lit.

I'm tired of the "Bush is a Dummy" argument. Quite simply put, it's not mature.

Posted by: AH at May 4, 2005 02:10 PM