Support NeoGAF

[schuelma]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...setts-to-act-before-seating-brown.php?ref=fpc

A more detailed and sourced article on how the bill will pass if Brown wins.

I think if its really really close the dems might be able to get away with it under the guise of making sure all the votes are counted. If Brown wins by 5 or more tomorrow, that won't work.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Yeah. I know congress can do a bypass and send the bill straight to the WH if nothing is changed, but how is it looking so far? Good enough that nobody in the senate will object?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I think if its really really close the dems might be able to get away with it under the guise of making sure all the votes are counted. If Brown wins by 5 or more tomorrow, that won't work.

It depends on what you mean by "work". Election law seems to be pretty clear, both from the MA state laws and Senate rules for seating Senators. I think adhering to them will hold up to the inevitable court challenge, perhaps long enough to pass the bill through regular order (the CBO seems to be the constraint there).

If you mean "work" in terms of surviving public scrutiny, I'm pretty confident that Brown will demand to be seated right away and the entire GOP party and media apparatus will be accusing the Dems of dirty tricks - regardless of the margins of the votes at that point. It's not like they'll hold back if the vote is close.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ally_want_brown_to_win_34_pulling_for_coakley

Why the hell would Rasmussen release a national poll about the MA race on the eve of the election :lol
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...ollsters:-Coakley-a-slight-favorite-(Updated)

That's a valid argument. Even without the momentum, the dems still have the machine in place on the ground in MA. The weather is supposed to be pretty bad tomorrow too, which will effect independents more than partisans.

 

[Averon]

I can only imagine what cable news will be like Wednesday morning if Brown wins or even a narrow Coakely win :lol

I think I'll avioid cable news for the next few weeks.

 

[empty vessel]

You premise is correct (polling shows that of the people who disapprove of the current bills, over half disapprove because they are not strong enough), but the diagnosis isn't quite right. Absolutely no amount of organization from the left would have moved the Blue Dogs in the House, or the Lincolns, Nelsons, Liebermans or Landrieus in the Senate.

The most liberal bill we were going to get was going to come from the House; the institutional roadblocks in the Senate have more to do with the weakness of the impending bill as much as anything.

Those institutional roadblocks wouldn't have caused a problem had there been sufficient pressure applied so as to make invoking them politically risky. I do favor removing those procedural devices, but that isn't the root of the problem. Moreover, an organized left movement would have caused an even more progressive bill from even the House.

 

[cntr]

TPMDC Morning Roundup

Coakley: 'We're Really Confident That We're Going To Make This Happen'
Martha Coakley predicted Monday that her campaign's get-out-the-vote effort will win her the Massachusetts special Senate election. Coakley said: "we have a race, but we're really confident that we're going to make this happen."

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will receive his presidential daily briefing at 10 a.m. ET, and meet at 10:30 a.m. ET with senior advisers. At 1:30 p.m. ET, Obama will host a conversation with a small group of African American seniors and their grandchildren, on the legacy of the civil rights movement. At 6:05 p.m. ET, the President and First Lady will attend a "Let Freedom Ring" concert, and Obama will deliver remarks.

Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden is visiting Florida Memorial University in Miami Gardens, Florida. At 9 a.m. ET, he will deliver remarks at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Interfaith Prayer Breakfast. Afterwards, Biden will return to Washington, D.C.

Biden: 'No Democracy Has Survived Needing A Supermajority'
Speaking at a fundraiser in Florida on Sunday, Vice President Biden slammed the new prominence of the filibuster, Politico reports. "As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators," Biden said. "No democracy has survived needing a supermajority."

Wall Street Weighs Legal Challenge To Proposed Bank Tax
The New York Times reports that Wall Street's main lobbying group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, has already hired a top Supreme Court litigator to study a possible legal challenge to the Obama administration's proposed fees on large financial firms. A potential challenge, if the measure were to pass, would be based around the idea that a tax on one industry could be considered arbitrary and punitive.

Reid Turns Next To Debt Ceiling Increase
Roll Call reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) next agenda item is to pass a $925 billion increase in the nation's debt limit. Reid will likely need to win some Republican support, which could potentially happen if he includes an amendment by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) to create a special commission on deficit reduction.

Bernanke's Term Running Out As Senate Dems Try To Set A Vote
The Hill reports that Senate Democrats will try to reach an agreement within the next two weeks on when to hold a confirmation vote for Ben Bernanke's reappointment as chairman of the Federal Reserve, against a January 31 deadline when Bernanke's current term will expire. Several Senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jim Bunning (R-KY) and Jim DeMint (R-SC), have placed holds on the vote.
​

 

[The Librarian]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...setts-to-act-before-seating-brown.php?ref=fpc

A more detailed and sourced article on how the bill will pass if Brown wins.

Welp, tomorrow's going to be interesting to say the least.

 

[cooltrainer]

Does a Senator who wins a special election stay a Senator for a full term? When would there be another election?

 

[Y2Kev]

Yeah, when is the next election?

 

[sc0la]

I doubt you were pining for a simple majority in the Bush years. Sweeping changes should be long, drawn out, transparent and thoughtful. The idea of ramming through bills as quick as possible needs to be put to bed.

This, to me, is a disingenuous position that relies on the false assumption that progressives and conservatives reap the same benefits from the fillibuster.

Some of the worst policy decisions of the Bush presidencey don't change an iota with or without the fillibuster.

With a simple majority vote, patriot act still passes (99-1), and is unlikely to be substantially altered.

Authorization of force in Iraq(77-23), again still passes either way.

The Bush Tax cuts (ironically 50-50 with Cheney breaking the tie). Even given the opportunity to stall indefinitely tax policy the vehemently opposed, progressives avoided the use of the fillibuster.

Add to this the fact that obstructionist opportunity is disproportionately distributed to less populous rural states (conservative) in the senate and this adds up to a poor value prospect to progressives.

Of course there is the possibility that some of those previously mentioned policies would have been worsened without the threat of fillibuster. But as pointed out on the tax cuts vote, progressives don't make much of a procedural threat out of anything.

So the short answer is no, I wasn't wishing for it then, but only as a consequence of not being clarivoyant to the Republican bullshit on healthcare today. The benefit to progressives of elemininating the filibuster outweighs the potential downsides IMO.

O.T. - you never posted pictures of you home theater set up in the speaker recomendations thread you made. ;p
Don't leave us hangin.

 

[eznark]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...setts-to-act-before-seating-brown.php?ref=fpc

A more detailed and sourced article on how the bill will pass if Brown wins.

So are they basically just saying the Barnes article is bullshit?

It looks like at the very least Brown/GOP will mount a legal challenge to stop Kirk from voting. I wonder if that is possible? Can you go to court to stop a seated Senator from voting?

This, to me, is a disingenuous position that relies on the false assumption that progressives and conservatives reap the same benefits from the fillibuster.

I'm not saying it would have been "bad" retroactively, I am saying it will be bad going forward for the left, unless you presume they will maintain a simple majority forever.

The threat of a filibuster likely kept things like social security reform, tax reform and killing the death tax off of the table. It certainly forced the GOP to limit Bush's broad (for about a week) domestic agenda.

O.T. - you never posted pictures of you home theater set up in the speaker recomendations thread you made. ;p
Don't leave us hangin.

Sorry, I totally forgot. I will try and remember to do it tomorrow. Just got some bad ass shelves!

 

[GhaleonEB]

Those institutional roadblocks wouldn't have caused a problem had there been sufficient pressure applied so as to make invoking them politically risky. I do favor removing those procedural devices, but that isn't the root of the problem. Moreover, an organized left movement would have caused an even more progressive bill from even the House.

I agree with part of this: there were multiple crucial moments in the development of the House bill where it could have become a much more progressive bill. For instance, there was a protracted fight in the House to get a much stronger public option both tied to the Medicare providers and to Medicare rates (first directly, and then +5%). In the end, those issues caucused just a few votes short of passage, and progressive organizing could very well have tipped it over the line.

In the Senate, we're dealing with people who have disincentives to respond to progressive pressure. Ben Nelson of deep-red Nebraska is getting gutted right now in his home state for voting for the bill, and that's after a long list of his demands were met so he could brandish his conservative credentials. He has more to lose from responding to pressure than he does to gain.

And who the hell knows what's up with Lieberman. He literally responded to pressure from the left by cutting the most sought-after provision (the public option, and then later Medicare buy-in). Pressure could likely have moved Lincoln and Landrieu - but that still puts the bill two votes short. I think the dual solution of the situation in the Senate is to primary every obstructionist, and the obvious institutional reforms - where again, we agree.

Does a Senator who wins a special election stay a Senator for a full term? When would there be another election?

Just until the end of Kennedy's term. I think that's 2012. Anyone know for sure?

 

[Juice]

Well, they better get ready for a PR nightmare if they do that.

No one will remember the rule-play tomfoolery in November.

 

[Juice]

Does a Senator who wins a special election stay a Senator for a full term? When would there be another election?

Regularly scheduled election would be 2012.

 

[schuelma]

It depends on what you mean by "work". Election law seems to be pretty clear, both from the MA state laws and Senate rules for seating Senators. I think adhering to them will hold up to the inevitable court challenge, perhaps long enough to pass the bill through regular order (the CBO seems to be the constraint there).

If you mean "work" in terms of surviving public scrutiny, I'm pretty confident that Brown will demand to be seated right away and the entire GOP party and media apparatus will be accusing the Dems of dirty tricks - regardless of the margins of the votes at that point. It's not like they'll hold back if the vote is close.

What I mean is, at least from that article, it seems like the timeline isn't mandatory- the language implies to me that certification is only delayed if they need to count absentee ballots, etc. If Brown wins to an extent that there literally aren't enough votes to make up that difference, I don't see how dems could possibly justify waiting 10-15 days or whatever.

All of this means nothing if my reading of that article was incorrect.

 

[GhaleonEB]

What I mean is, at least from that article, it seems like the timeline isn't mandatory- the language implies to me that certification is only delayed if they need to count absentee ballots, etc. If Brown wins to an extent that there literally aren't enough votes to make up that difference, I don't see how dems could possibly justify waiting 10-15 days or whatever.

All of this means nothing if my reading of that article was incorrect.

The details keep getting dropped out of the subsequent TPM articles - I think this is their fourth today on the subject. Their one from this morning (that kicked off our conversation) documented the relevant laws. From there I was speculating what might go down, which seems to now be the plan.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-at-least-10-days-probably-more.php?ref=fpblg

First of all, no certificate of election can be issued until at least ten days following a special election, and in real terms it would probably be at least 15 days. State law can allow for a certificate seven days after a special election -- but that law is trumped by the federal laws governing overseas and military ballots, which are triggered because this is an election for federal office, and which create a longer window in this election.

I think that means 15 days is the minimum, and if the vote is close, it could go longer due to counting or recounting.

 

[schuelma]

The details keep getting dropped out of the subsequent TPM articles - I think this is their fourth today on the subject. Their one from this morning (that kicked off our conversation) documented the relevant laws. From there I was speculating what might go down, which seems to now be the plan.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-at-least-10-days-probably-more.php?ref=fpblg



I think that means 15 days is the minimum, and if the vote is close, it could go longer due to counting or recounting.

I don't know..I'm getting skeptical that anyone knows what is really going on. I do know Teddy Kennedy was seated in the Senate before getting certified, but maybe rules have changed.

 

[Diablos]

He's a perpetual worry wort. And it is indeed tiresome.

But in this particular case, he has reason to worry. The polling released today combined with the higher level of pessimism within the White House (as reported today by HuffPo) paint a pretty grim picture. Coakley fucked up her campaign about every possible way one could imagine, and then came up with a few new ones.

BTW, State of the Union address on the 27th. There was some speculation that Obama would push it to the week after so he could sign the health bill first, but they seem to have given up on that. Which is another bad sign.

Oh boy is tomorrow going to be interesting. And by interesting I mean terrifying. :lol

It's tiresome because I've been trying to consistently point out that there's a huge flaw in how they've been handling this bill? Really? Everyone else always seems to put positive spin on what was a terribly planned process that Harry Reid did nothing to help. This bill should have been passed MONTHS ago. This election shouldn't even MATTER. This is why the Democrats should not have waited so long.

If he doesn't want to push back the SOTU that's a pretty good sign that he seems to be content with letting the bill die. Either that or Nancy Pelosi gets enough votes to pass the Senate bill. I wish they'd just do that.

Taxpayers bailing out AIG and killing HCR is not a good way to start your Presidency. Obama dug himself a really deep hole. I don't know how he can recover from this.

 

[cntr]

The Fairness Doctrine

The American news media is going to hell in a handbasket. It has become so intertwined with the corporate power structure that the only way one can get an accurate fix on what's going on in the United States is to turn to the BBC or various media outlets from other countries.

What immediately comes to mind is the way the U.S. news media jumped between the sheets with the administration during the invasion of Iraq. Instead of standing back and taking an objective look at the rationale being literally stuffed down our throats, they immediately went into cheerleader mode. They referred to it as being "imbedded," when it should have been referred to it as being "in-bed-with."

The revelation of the Downing Street Memo is a case in point. The Downing Street Memo was a Top Secrete document to Tony Blair, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, issued on July 23, 2002. It was written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign aide to the Prime Minister, after meeting with the Bush Administration. The document pointed out in graphic detail the Bush administration's game plan to deceive the world in order to justify its decision to invade Iraq. It pointed out that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

In short, eight months prior to the invasion of Iraq this official U.K. document indicated that Bush wanted to go after Saddam, but they were going to have to lie to justify it. The memo was leaked by the British press in 2005. But in spite of the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent human beings - including our own American troops - as a direct result of this criminal deception, it's been all but ignored by the American media. They've given more coverage to Tiger Woods' sex life.

The behavior of the mainstream media during that period, and since, clearly demonstrates why it's so incumbent upon us to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine. Most Republicans, and many others in Washington, claim that TFD is an attack on free speech, but it's just the opposite. In fact, it ensures the freedom of speech of those who would indeed keep us informed, but are currently being denied equal access to the airways by media organizations like Fox News and many other news organizations that one wouldn't expect, as a result of Fox's impact on the industry.

So what's actually an attack on our freedom of speech are network news organizations using the public airways and conduits to spread lies, disinformation, or engage in omissions, that have a negative impact on society by distorting public policy, then preventing knowledgeable parties access to those same conduits to present the other side of the issue. That's exactly what Fox News specializes in for political purposes, and other media organizations follow, if not with a political motive, as a simple matter of dollars and cents.

The American people have just as much right to know the facts about what's being fed into the minds of our children as we do what's going into the food that we eat, and TFD ensures just that. It allows interested parties equal time to correct the record when licensed broadcasters abuse the public airways, and other broadcasting conduits, to distort the facts regarding public policy.

The issue has now been further complicated with the advent of new technology such as satellite and cable systems. Now, even with TFD in place, a determined rogue organization can try to circumvent it by beaming into our homes from outside our borders, so in addition to reinstating TFD, new laws need to be put into place to specifically address the issue of intent.
If it is clearly the intent of an organization to beam disinformation into America's homes from outside our borders to circumvent TFD to negatively impact public policy, there should be legal sanctions. If the organization is found to be domestic in origin, severe legal or regulatory action should be taken. If it is a foreign organization that's purposely trying to distort the facts on U.S. domestic policy, it should be given a choice - either adhere to the precepts of TFD, or be deprived access to the American market.

So, should the internet be regulated as well?

In a word, no. The internet falls into an entirely different category than broadcasting. The internet falls into the same category as books, newspapers, and magazines. Essentially, it's an electronic publication. On the internet one has to actively seek out disinformation if one wants it, and that's the user's right. But the broadcasting industry is so powerfully pervasive that the public can be inadvertently subjected to harmful disinformation on public policy.

In addition, since our educational system is under such a brutal attack, responsible broadcasters should be rewarded with generous tax incentives to incorporate entertaining educational content into their schedules. Knowledge, presented in a creative and insightful way can be just as entertaining, in fact, even more entertaining, than violence, corruption, and decadence.

Any good story involves people overcoming adversity. Why does that have to be with a gun? Millions of people across this country show what they're made of by dealing with adversity of every kind on a daily basis, yet, only a small minority of them address those issues with a gun, or violence of any kind. Why can't we show their stories? Why can't we show our young men that it takes more manhood to raise a child than rob a bank?

All one has to do is turn on the television and read the programming descriptions to understand why we're faced with so much turmoil in this country - and I can't help but think it's by design. We need to get a handle on our broadcasting industry, and the very first step in that direction should be to reinstate TFD in order to tear the megaphone from the hands of big business.

The one thing that corporations have a healthy respect for is the dollar. Thus, the very best thing about TFD is it gives the networks an economic incentive to be balanced - or at least, not tell blantant lies. If FOX News had to give equal air time for rebuttal every time Glenn Beck told a lie, it would be cost prohibitive. They wouldn't have any time let for commercials, so they'd be forced to be a responsible broadcaster.

So we need to address this issue immediately, while we still have a country. Because as long as we fail to address this matter, we're giving carte blanche to the most greedy and corrupt among us. We've handed over full control of our news media, and thereby, public policy.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

PHOTOS: First Family serves lunch

The President and First Lady greet people and give out meals in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day during a volunteer work project at the So Others Might Eat dining room for the homeless in Washington January 18, 2010.

 

[Fatalah]

PHOTOS: First Family serves lunch

I have to say, it's always good to see this kind of stuff.

 

[Diablos]

Is it me, or can you tell Obama looks a little... troubled in some of his recent pics? Like he's trying to be a part of the event but something is bogging him down.

Hmm, Nate Silver has Coakley's chances of winning at 25%.

 

[sprsk]

Is it me, or can you tell Obama looks a little... troubled in some of his recent pics? Like he's trying to be a part of the event but something is bogging him down.

Shut up and get out.

 

[Diablos]

Shut up and get out.

:lol What? The man looks visibly upset. Stop taking out your frustration on me, wow.

 

[Macam]

Is it me, or can you tell Obama looks a little... troubled in some of his recent pics? Like he's trying to be a part of the event but something is bogging him down.

He's just trying to figure out why Corgan is fucking Jessica Simpson is all.

 

[Diablos]

He's just trying to figure out why Corgan is fucking Jessica Simpson is all.

Haha, depressing information overload. Obama gets owned and Billy Corgan is potentially putting the final nail in his own coffin. It's a sign

 

[sc0la]

The threat of a filibuster likely kept things like social security reform, tax reform and killing the death tax off of the table. It certainly forced the GOP to limit Bush's broad (for about a week) domestic agenda.

I think that is a credible point, that not having a filibuster would have allowed that administration and congress to push right. I just discount how much of a big deal it is. There where plenty of red state dems who would have been on board just to save their own skins and not filibustered.

I am not counting on permanent majorities, in fact I think the very act of eliminating the super majority makes the majority less important in the long run. I think you are less likely to get majorities ramming down unpopular legislation if they know they are a vote away from it going away in the short term.

I would also suggest that ending the super majority would reduce the leveraging power ego-maniacs (leiberman) and "fish out of water" representatives (Nelson) because you can find a larger number of people who are going to be willing to make a deal with out asking for the world. You don't need either party's fringe on board. The very accusation of "too fast" potentially gets erased. You can level heads and negotiators at your table instead of extortionists at your table and not try to DO IT NOW while the "magical" 60 is around.

Sorry, I totally forgot. I will try and remember to do it tomorrow. Just got some bad ass shelves!

Radical.

 

[drakesfortune]

As opposed to the PR nightmare of not passing healthcare reform?:lol

Yeah, passing a bill that has roughly only 1/3rd of the country supporting is a much worse PR nightmare than not passing it. And tomorrow in upsidedown world, President Obama will advocate invading Canada. Yeah, only 1/3rd of the country is for it, but if he argues for it, fails, and doesn't continue with the invasion, things will be worse for him somehow.

And when all of the new taxes from the health bill kick in immediately, and the benefits don't come for four years, people are really going to be happy with the dems. They'll say, gee, thanks dems for passing that bill, we'd have been really upset with you if you had listened to us and not passed this bill that requires 10 years of tax increases to fund 5-6 years of benefits.

If the dems pass that bill after a Brown win through some back door deal, or some rule gimmick, then Republicans WILL win the senate and house back this year. Period. We've heard all of these crazy arguments all year. Obama has been screaming, if you don't do this thing that nobody wants you to do, then you're all going to get voted out of office. Well, each house passed the horrid thing, and now we might see a Republican in MA. In MA!!! That's not just a canary in a coal mine for dems, that's 100 dead men in a mine. Do you think they'll be able to see the problem for it is after the mine collapses and kills another 200?

Obama keeps saying the sky is neon purple. We can all look up and plainly see that the sky is blue. Yet he keeps telling everyone it's purple.

The ONLY thing that can save the dems at this point is if they drop this health bill, and do as Clinton did, and move to the center. They need to steal some issues from Republicans, work in a bipartisan manner, stop saying Bush every other word, or they...are...toast.

Oh and the fairness doctrine. Yikes.

Let's sum it up, you want to regulate media that the right is more powerful in, and you want to ensure no regulation for the media the left is more powerful in. Period. Stop being little fascists. Fight fire with fire, but don't outlaw free speech lest ye wish to have a police state.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's tiresome because I've been trying to consistently point out that there's a huge flaw in how they've been handling this bill?

It's tiresome because for months you've been popping in to proclaim the latest dip in the Gallup poll represents yet another failure of Obama and the Democrats in general.

Like November 3rd, when Obama dipped to 50%.

And November 17th, when he dipped to....50%.

And on November 25th when he dipped among whites.

And December 31st, when he dipped to...51%. (Note your caveat, "I usually wouldn't care, but...")

He's at 50% again today. Still.

And so on. Every time there's a dip in some poll, you're here lamenting it. Despite an obvious weekly cadence to the Gallup poll being pointed out over and over, you're there lamenting the dips along the way. And that's just from searching for "Gallup" in your post history and posting some of them; you've done this for tons of other polls.

So yes, I find that tiresome. There's nothing wrong with monitoring and posting about polls, but you're constantly panicked about every dip they take. I actually kind of sympathize, because during the election I was exactly like that. I've just forced myself to tune out since the daily polls don't matter in the long term; there's enough other stuff to worry about.

But back to the topic at hand: I'm still cautiously optimistic about tomorrow, but the latest round of polling was grim. So there is a real reason to be worried right now.

 

[Particle Physicist]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ally_want_brown_to_win_34_pulling_for_coakley

Why the hell would Rasmussen release a national poll about the MA race on the eve of the election :lol

That poll makes no sense. Likely voters nationwide, yet it is asking about a race in MA.. what likely voter model did they use?

 

[sc0la]

That poll makes no sense. Likely voters nationwide, yet it is asking about a race in MA.. what likely voter model did they use?

I think its safe to assume it includes people who could vote if they could time travel and establish residency in time to register for the special election.

 

[cntr]

EU to Push for International Climate Deal Through G20

Noting the failure of the Copenhagen Talks to produce an internationally agreeable climate change treaty, the European Union is looking to push for more concentrated negotiations at the G20 meetings. The EU reportedly feels that taking the G20 route would help iron out the major issues between the developed and developing countries which were one of the major reasons for the shameful failure of COP15.

The G20 includes developed nations like the US and Australia as well as developing countries like India and China could prove crucial to in the formulation of a final framework treaty. Precious time was lost at Copenhagen as a plethora of discussion drafts were presented by various groups of countries. The G20 could prove beneficial in that it could produce a draft treaty formulated by by developed and developing countries which could be signed by the world leaders at COP16 at Mexico City this December.

The European Union probably realizes its mistake of taking the backseat in the run up to the Copenhagen talks. Possible complacency might have crept in as President Obama was looked promising in his efforts to build understanding with the US Congress and countries like China and Brazil. In the end, however, EU found itself alone demanding for ambitious emission reduction targets in the new climate treaty at the COP15 with no support from the United States or any other developed country except Japan.

Year long discussions by climate negotiators from almost 200 countries bore no fruits. Significant achievements in the negotiations was reported from the monthly meetings of the negotiators in the run up to COP15. Till the very end the UN officials were hopeful of striking an ambitious deal based on scientific data and recommendations of the IPCC which projects that a 25-40% reduction would be required for the ceasing the temperature rise to 2°C.

The G20 consists of the major economies of the world which are also the major players in the Clean Development Mechanism thus concentrated negotiations would also result in discussion and implementation of much needed reforms in the CDM. Discussions over exchange of clean technology, which was a major issue at COP15, could also be held at the G20 since the member nations are the major technological contributors. Many industrial clean technologies need to be installed in the developing countries for abatement of carbon emissions and improvement in energy efficiency while low cost technologies of developing countries like the solar lighting and energy generation through biomass have immense potential in the poor countries.

More importantly, the issue of monitoring and verification of voluntary emission reduction measures which almost single-handedly sank the negotiations at COP15 can be discussed, and probably be solved so that no time is wasted at crucial climate meets. The developing countries did not agree to international monitoring of unsupported mitigation measures as they saw it as an attempt to challenge the principles of the Kyoto Protocol which differentiated between the developed and developing countries.

While the G20 offers itself as a great platform for climate change negotiations since members nations were among the most vocal and active at the COP15, the absence of poor and small island nations could endanger a secular and comprehensive draft which fails to address the concerns of the people and countries already facing the adverse impacts of climate change.

Tuvalu’s draft which resulted in the suspension of the discussions was scientifically ideal but could not clear the political hurdles. The developed and developing countries argued over technicalities and numbers while the representatives of the poor countries returned dejected and with empty promises of actions. It is now the responsibility of these nations, which are the major emitters of greenhouse gases and have the adequate financial and technological resources to combat climate change, to resolve their differences and reach to a scientifically correct agreement.

via Associated Press

 

[Particle Physicist]

.nevermind.

i think i'll ignore the lunatic.

 

[gkryhewy]

Obama keeps saying the sky is neon purple. We can all look up and plainly see that the sky is blue. Yet he keeps telling everyone it's purple.

This is very well put. The writing was on the wall with his "sky is purple" campaign rhetoric. Glenn Beck tried to tell us, but we just wouldn't listen.

Who pulled the string? Speaking of pulling, do you have any more poll numbers up your ass?

 

[gcubed]

why is it tiresome? Because you pointed to members of a fucking facebook group as some kind of proof of the tide of a statewide election

 

[cooltrainer]

Is it me, or can you tell Obama looks a little... troubled in some of his recent pics? Like he's trying to be a part of the event but something is bogging him down.

Probably misses his old glasses.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think its safe to assume it includes people who could vote if they could time travel and establish residency in time to register for the special election.

Doc Brown = Scott Brown

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-

 

[cntr]

Rooftop Solar Installations Growing Faster than Utility-Scale Solar

Private solar installations are really taking off nationwide. In just two years, (about the same length of time it takes to get a pair of 250 MW solar power plants approved in California, for example), homeowners and businesses have added that much power to the Californian grid, just from individual rooftops throughout the state.

By July last year, 50,000 installations were supplying the California grid with 500 MW of solar power; the equivalent of two average sized solar power plants now under review in the state.

Nearly all solar installations are now grid -connected in California, by contrast with the first wave of solar power in the 70’s when a battery was needed to supply power at night, and early adopters had to be careful not to exceed their power, turning off dishwashers on cloudy days.

Now however, nearly all solar is grid-connected, meaning that the power generated is stored in a giant battery: the grid. Output is measured as it enters the grid, by the utility, which gives a credit for the electricity generated.

Solar installers are able to size each system so that it generates the same kwh a month as the homeowner or business uses in total (including both nights and days), with the result that the credits on the utility bill will zero out the debits from night time use. Because of the grid acting as a cheap or free battery, whereas in 1999 average installed systems were 2.5 KW and included an expensive battery, now the average system for homeowners is 4.8 KW and is grid-connected.

The growth in solar power has been fast among homeowners, and even faster among commercial building owners. The faster adoption of commercial solar is due to the lower prices for larger scale installs (over 500 KW cost 17% less per watt than the under 10 KW systems typically installed on homes) and the wider availability of Power Purchase agreements, which are usually only available to businesses. Commercial installations grew from 19% in 2005 to 46% of all installations in 2008.

As the percentage of non-utility solar being added to the grid increases, some states, like California, are looking at raising the state imposed limit. Californian non-utility solar is now close to the current 2.5% of the state’s electricity coming from rooftops.

The Solar Alliance has sponsored a bill to allow up to 10% of the state’s electricity to be generated by private homeowners and businesses. Other states, like North Carolina, are proposing no cap at all.

Source: Interstate Renewable Energy Council

 

[cntr]

State E-Waste Laws Successful, But May Be Challenged

Even as more states put e-waste laws into effect, a legal challenge to New York City’s law is raising issues about their future. E-waste laws are just one example of a growing U.S. movement toward extended producer responsibility (EPR). Nineteen states and New York City have passed electronics EPR laws that require electronics manufactures to pay for and facilitate collection and recycling of their products at the end of consumer use.

But the Consumers Electronic Association (CEA) and the Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC) have sued to block New York City’s law because of a feature requiring door-to-door collection of the waste products. Manufacturers must provide such an option for city residents disposing of electronic devices heavier than 15 pounds.

This feature of the New York City law is designed to cater to residents of the densely-packed city who do not own vehicles. CA and ITIC say the mandate is draconian and prohibitively expensive. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for Jan. 19. But one of the leading proponents of New York City’s law, the Natural Resources Defense Council, has intervened in the case. Last summer NRDC Senior Attorney Kate Sindig responded to the lawsuit by saying the manufacturers “are trying to escape liability for manufacturing toxic products on the basis that once sold they can wash their hands of them. Not only does this proposition offend basic notions of corporate responsibility, but a consideration of other regulatory approaches commonly employed in this country suggests that it cannot be correct.” Observers say a successful challenge to the law could led to challenges against not just e-waste laws, but other product stewardship statutes.

Meanwhile, a new report on the second year of Minnesota’s 2007 e-waste law finds that it delivered 5.72 pounds of recycled electronics per capita in the state of 5.2 million. The law covers household/consumer video display devices in televisions, computer monitors, and laptop computers. The law’s goal of 60% recycling by weight of video display devices sold in the state in its first year rose to 80% in the second year. If the goals are not met, registration fees for manufacturers increase. Manufacturers are allowed to contract directly with e-waste recyclers, form recycling alliances, or offer take-back options. Manufacturers must register with the state and retailers can sell only from the registered 107 brands.

Wisconsin joined the ranks of states with e-waste laws last fall. The previous voluntary system there resulted in only about 10% recycling.

 

[eznark]

I think that is a credible point, that not having a filibuster would have allowed that administration and congress to push right. I just discount how much of a big deal it is. There where plenty of red state dems who would have been on board just to save their own skins and not filibustered.

I am not counting on permanent majorities, in fact I think the very act of eliminating the super majority makes the majority less important in the long run. I think you are less likely to get majorities ramming down unpopular legislation if they know they are a vote away from it going away in the short term.

I would also suggest that ending the super majority would reduce the leveraging power ego-maniacs (leiberman) and "fish out of water" representatives (Nelson) because you can find a larger number of people who are going to be willing to make a deal with out asking for the world. You don't need either party's fringe on board. The very accusation of "too fast" potentially gets erased. You can level heads and negotiators at your table instead of extortionists at your table and not try to DO IT NOW while the "magical" 60 is around.

I don't really see how it would lead to more cooperation. It would just lead to quick bills (and quick repeals) every two years. I don't believe in the current climate it will be possible for both sides of the aisle to really come together to do important and intelligent work. I've said it numerous times, I love gridlock. My greatest realistic desire is a 51-49 senate, with the Presidents party being in the minority.

Of course, eliminating the supermajority could logically lead to third parties (mine being the most significant among them) gaining legitimate power. If that were to happen I would be all for it.

 

[cntr]

Individuals Save $9,242 Annually Riding Transit (List of Top 20 Cities)

Mass transit is often associated with limitations. People have to plan when they leave based on when their bus, streetcar, light-rail, or commuter rail line leaves. They don’t have the ‘pleasure’ of circling around a parking lot trying to find the spot closest to the front door. They can’t easily stop off at McDonald’s for a healthy bite to eat. And so on.

Well, those things may provide a little bit of limitation, but there are other factors that can give you more freedom as well.

For example, the average transit rider in the US now saves $9,242 a year by riding transit (approximately $770 a month). I could think of at least a few things to do with $9,242! Things I couldn’t do without it.

In New York, you can actually save about $1,147 a month or $13,765 a year. The top 20 US cities in average savings are listed below.

But there are more benefits to riding transit, too.

Other Savings — Real Time and Travel Time

Time costs are often discussed in economics, but they are something people often forget about or miscalculate in real life. You may think that riding in transit wastes your time because it takes longer. This may be true (depends on your situation), but something to remember is that a lot of people (perhaps you) could use that time to work, read, catch up on emails, or do something else useful while you are sitting in transit. When you are driving, doing something like that is much more difficult or possibly dangerous.

Perhaps this is one reason why the US dumped 4 million cars last year.

Aside from these hidden time costs, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) actually found that public transit does save people in travel time as well — it saved Americans approximately 650 million hours in travel time in 2007. Remember, it takes a lot less space to move a bus full of people (or even half-full) than the same number of people driving alone in cars. There’s another reason to love transit, whether you ride it or not!

If we want to reduce our dependence on oil from unsafe and anti-American foreign countries or if we want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, getting in transit is one easy step. From that same report by TTI, public transit saved 398 million gallons of fuel in 2007.

Top 20 Cities — Transit Savings Report

As the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports, the best savings based on data* as recent as this week are in these cities (monthly savings first, then annual savings):
1 New York: $1,147, $13,765
2 Boston: $1,030, $12,362
3 San Francisco: $1,013, $12,156
4 Chicago: $946, $11,357
5 Seattle: $932, $11,185
6 Philadelphia: $927, $11,121
7 Honolulu: $887, $10,639
8 Los Angeles: $838, $10,052
9 San Diego: $824, $9,894
10 Minneapolis: $824, $9,884
11 Cleveland: $803, $9,639
12 Portland: $798, $9,581
13 Denver: $795, $9,539
14 Baltimore: $782, $9,383
15 Miami: $752, $9,022
16 Washington, DC: $751, $9,015
17 Dallas: $730, $8,756
18 Atlanta: $722, $8,658
19 Las Vegas: $716, $8,591
20 Pittsburgh: $680, $8,162

*Based on gasoline prices as reported by AAA on 1/11/10.

 

[cntr]

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/17/high-tech-makeover-in-store-for-nations-power-transmission-lines/

Scientists working at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven Laboratory are all abuzz over a new bit of evidence that could help the U.S. save a good chunk of the energy that is currently lost through power transmission lines. The DOE estimates that the nation’s antiquated transmission and distribution systems together were losing about 9.5% as of 2001, and things haven’t gotten any better since then.

The Brookhaven breakthrough involved evidence that electronic liquid crystal states can exist within a high temperature superconductor. In practical terms, that means that it may be practical to develop power lines that lose no power at all. There’s a long way to go before the rubber hits the road on this one, though. The next step is to see if the material maintains its capabilities in real conditions that can be applied to the Smart Grid of the future.

Superconductors and Transmission Lines

The problem with superconductors is their need for the deep freeze. That’s the nature of superconductivity, it requires extremely low temperatures. A conventional metal superconductor requires a temperature close to absolute zero, or -270 degrees Celsius. New iron-based superconductors can operate at -220 degrees (still chilly, but an improvement). The Brookhaven discovery exposed a similarity between the behavior of electrons in the conventional materials and the new iron-based materials. This could lead to a deeper understanding of the way superconductors operate, which in turn could lead to new materials for manufacturing zero-loss power transmission lines (among many other things).
The Key to the Brookhaven Superconductor Research

The Brookhaven project involved an international team headed up by Cornell University researcher Seamus Davis along with scientists from Japan and the U.S. They used Davis’s next-generation spectroscopic image-scanning tunneling microscopy technique, which enabled them to take direct nanoscale images of specially prepared crystals developed by another research group headed by Ames Laboratory scientist Paul Canfield. They found that some electrons formed a line along one axis of the crystal, as in an electronic liquid crystal display. Other electrons traveled freely through the crystal in a perpendicular path. These are the basic conditions for superconductivity, and the next challenge is to figure out why warmer temperatures interfere with the process.
Get Me a High Temperature Superconductor - And Make it Snappy!

DOE is in a big hurry to develop high-temperature superconductors and other new technologies before the nation’s entire electrical grid collapses, and that’s a pretty tall order. First we have to clean up after the party, namely the 20-year period in which demand increased 25% but new grid construction dropped by 30%. That’s what I call a hangover! On top of that there’s the challenge of engineering a national grid that can reliably deliver new energy sources including solar power and wind power, some of which involve complex management issues because of their intermittent nature.

 

[cntr]

Michigan Gov to Repower Detroit With Solar Roofs for as Low as $6,000

The people who live in Detroit could really use some good news after taking the hardest landing as the Age of Oil clunkered to a close. A massive homesteading retrofit program to bring free energy from sunshine would be just perfect.

In 2007, Michigan’s Governor Granholm had instigated one of the most progressive climate targets of any state in the US, to achieve an EU Kyoto Accord level of greenhouse gas reduction of 20% below 1990 by 2020.

To get there, she set out a combination of renewable energy incentives that make solar roofs in the nearly abandoned city a slam dunk, and which could bring out-of-pocket costs down to as little as $6,000.

In 2007, she signed the ambitious target. And to get there, she invited some serious thinkers to analyze the cost-effectiveness of various policy options. After a more than a year of intensive stakeholder collaboration and cost-benefit analysis, they recommended 54 climate mitigation policy actions to lower greenhouse gases and achieve a $25 billion net gain in the gross state product.

One of the policy options recommended was “Incentives to Promote Renewable Energy Systems Implementation”.

She took their advice and budgeted $25 million for solar rebates. Now the local utility, DTE Energy, as part of the its compliance plan under the state Renewable Portfolio Standard - which requires that it buy more renewable energy each year - will pay residents to install solar power that feeds the grid. They can stop the offer only once their customers have collectively installed 5 MW of solar power. Any customers of DTE Energy are eligible.

Because the rebate pays $2,400 for every KW installed, a 5 KW system would be $12,000 off.

Like all Americans, Detroit homeowners would get the new 30% tax credit, which would reduce cost another $6,900, leaving an out-of-pocket cost of just $6,000, according to calculations by Solar Fred at Solar Power Rocks.

In addition, the utility will continue to pay a Feed-in Tariff of 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. This would bring in income year after year, which Solar Fred estimates, assuming average Detroit rain, snow and a good roof orientation, could amount to a tidy $610 or so a year.

To those people who live in the Rogue States that have not passed climate and renewable energy legislation, it must seem inconceivable that an electric utility would actually pay you to put solar on your roof to compete with their rates. But once built, renewable energy will be much cheaper than fossil energy, because the fuel is free and non-polluting. And climate legislation makes that initial switch happen.

And what more fitting way to re-energize the city that suffered the most from fossil fuels - than with a 25 to 40 year supply of fossil-free energy.

 

[yankeeforever2]

Damn the Dems are really screwed is Mass.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Do they think calling someone a Nazi will get them to change their mind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMoSHNwJ5pM

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

State Cops Probing Woman Who Hoped Coakley “Gets Shot”

State Troopers are investigating talk of violence to Attorney General Martha Coakley, interrogating a woman who posted on Facebook that she hopes Coakley gets shot, a source in the Attorney General’s office confirms.

“Hope she gets shot,” a poster wrote about Coakley’s planned rally with Bill Clinton.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/s...vestigating-woman-who-hoped-coakley-gets-shot

I guess some people don't realize that what you post on message boards or on places like facebook or twitter are public and can get you fired or arrested.

 

[charlequin]

Wow, it's like every trollish talking point ever got together and threw a barbecue over the weekend. Center-right nation? Really?

It's not just when they're out of power but also when they're in power. If the GOP had HCR and they have WH and the numerical advantage Dems have in Congress, they would've passed a final bill months ago.

If you look at the GOP during the Bush years, they don't actually pass a lot of strongly conservative legislation. You see a lot of muddled, moderate legislation that ultimately passes in a true bipartisan fashion (NCLB), some insane stuff forced through on the back of 9/11 (PATRIOT), a lot of misuse of executive power, a war that the Democrats completely enabled... and that's about it.

The GOP really didn't just start being the party of "No" in 2009; there were very few concrete ideas in play in that party throughout the decade and many of those that existed either went down in flames (privatizing Social Security) or never got any traction in Congress.

So anyone who complains or is frustrated with Democratic leadership is a "Chicken Little".

No, you are a Chicken Little because you RUN AROUND LIKE YOUR HEAD GOT CUT OFF IN A REALLY FUCKING ANNOYING WAY

How did Coakely get the dem nomination?

Short-ass primary with ultra-low turnout due to being a primary for an off-season election, thereby guaranteeing the candidate with name recognition (i.e. the only person who had successfully won a statewide office before) won regardless of actual quality.

8 years ago you would have despised a majority rule, and with the cyclical nature of politics it is likely you will hate it again soon.

Nope.

Country is explicitly better off with no filibuster regardless of which party's in charge because that makes it easier for both sides to run on a specific agenda and then pass that agenda when they win.

Well, it would help if you remember that he's not a teabagger. And he certainly hasn't sold himself as such.

He's a teabagger, a douche, and running ads that specifically say he doesn't believe that "terrorists" have any rights under the Constitution.

If Coakley loses, I think it would be a pretty reasonable reaction to panic.

No, at that point the correct reaction is to fucking set things on fire.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

No, at that point the correct reaction is to fucking set things on fire.

I may be totally wrong, but assuming that Brown does win (still not a guarantee), I don't see how such an event wouldn't set the Dems ass on fire to start getting more aggressive. Perhaps they were complacent with 60 with the letter D next to their name? Perhaps this is what they need to start actually playing the Repubs game? Many including Diablos are acting as though the sky is falling, perhaps we should actually wait and see?

 

[mAcOdIn]

No, at that point the correct reaction is to fucking set things on fire.

LOL, seriously?

Just seems funny to see someone wanting majority rules no filibuster type government and then turn around and call for riots if his chosen candidate loses. Please tell me I shouldn't have taken the statement literally.