And The Beat Goes On

Debt - The American Way

OK the clip is from back in the eighties, but the only thing that's really changed since then is that things are even more intense as far as advertising and getting people into debt is concerned. And on a national level, the current administration is (intentionally?) driving the nation deep into debt with a combination of huge spending (for the interminable wars, of course) and huge tax breaks (though not for people like you and me, of course).

This is the first of three parts, you can see the other parts here.

The Charmings didn't last very long (and considering the limited premise, it really couldn't) but it had some very good moments, and an excellent cast, with Christopher Rich as Prince Charming, and in particular Judy Parfitt as Queen Lillian and Paul Winfield as "The Mirror". They were the stars of the show. I liked the first Snow White better, though...

Podcast 1/22/07

Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!

A good show today, with good callers and topics. I also was on the first hour of The Inside Scoop with Mark Levine discussing the latest Presidential candidates, among other issues. Enjoy!

Special Report

Breaking news from Katie Couric.

Podcast 1/19/07

Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!

Good show today, a lot on the menu, plus callers! You can't beat that with a stick!

An Extra Cup O' Joe

Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!

As a result of my post about Maison Ikkoku, I was contacted by longtime Cup O' Joe reader and commenter Daryl Surat of Anime World Order and asked to be on their podcast, and being the loudmouthed egotist that I am, I gladly accepted the invitation. I've been an anime fan since 1985, and I love telling stories of the good old days of anime fandom when nothing was subtitled and fan clubs had to be content with 32^nd generation copies of untranslated episodes of shows that were generally only made available via anime clubs.

The post for the show isn't up on the Anime World Order website just yet due to issues with blogger, but the podcast of the interview is now online, and you can listen by clicking the link below.

Podcast 1/17/07

Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!

I was filling in for Dr. Bill O'Brien today, as he had some professor stuff to do. All in all a good show, with regular caller Sarge dropping by, and my good friend Sue who points us towards the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count website.

Podcast 1/15/07

Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!

On today's show, I talked with Carolyn Kay of Make Them Accountable about how the limousine left doesn't do enough to support us activists, among other things. And our good friend Sarge drops by to update us on the situation on the Gulf Coast. Have a good Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, he was a great American and we miss him!

Carrots And Sticks

This post is in keeping with the theme of my two most recent political cartoons, and the news that the CEO of Home Depot (Or, as commenter cory calls it, Home Despot - heh) received a benefits package worth over $200 million after basically screwing up the company. You all don't need me to tell you what happens when someone like you or me screws up: we get fired, and if we're lucky, our professional reputations, such as they are, don't get ruined to the point where we can never get a decent-paying job again. Mr. Nardelli may or may not ever run a company as big as Home Depot ever again, but then again we can't be certain of that. And even so, that's a pretty good nest egg to retire with. I think $200 million can gloss over whatever professional pride you may have lost by getting canned.

Most working people have a sense of pride in the job they do or how hard they work, even when they're grossly underpaid. Just the other day I overheard two co-workers talking about how long they go without a break, as if that was a source of pride for them. I managed to keep my mouth shut, thankfully, but I couldn't help but wonder what was so great about missing a break? Did they get any more money because of it? Did they even get any recognition from their superiors? Not where I work.

When he first started working, my son Christopher used to brag about how his bosses relied on him so much, and I warned him that they would only take advantage of him. Sure enough. a few months later he was bitching about how they were always calling him on his days off, and making him do more and more, without any kind of compensation. He doesn't have any incentive to work harder, he only has the threat of not being able to support himself. All stick, no carrot, as the saying goes.

But I guess if you're someone like Mr. Nardelli, there's no incentive not to foul up. It's not like he'll wind up losing his house or something, or have to go without food. I sincerely doubt any hourly employee at Home Depot could say the same. Now I don't have to be an expert at macroeconomics and big business and society in general to know that there's something seriously wrong here. I don't know the specifics of what he did at HD, but I'll bet they wound up letting go of a bunch of people because of it. $200 million would pay 4,000 workers $50,000 each for a year's work, and I don't think an hourly worker at Home Depot makes anywhere near that much. They get canned, and Nardelli walks away with a nice chunk of change. And he's only one of many execs across the country doing the same thing.

What really angers and saddens me at the same time, however, is how many working class people will stand up and applaud the Nardellis of the world. They're whacked with sticks and praise the hand that beats them, and God help anyone who suggests that maybe they get a carrot or two for the work they do. Mr. Nardelli and his buddies are the ones ripping us off, but to too many of us, it's our fellow worker who are our own worst enemies.

Update: As I was writing this, Digby points out how all the pundits who were dead wrong about the Iraq war and its aftermath are getting carrots in the form of cushy jobs, while those who have been right all along have been, and are still being, punished for being right. Yeesh.

Kids These Days

Momofuku Ando 1910 - 2007

In 1958, Mr. Ando revolutionized the food industry with a simple idea: to provide a cheap, easy meal for working class people, a meal that could be made practically anywhere. His final product was considered by businesses at the time to be nothing more than a novelty that wouldn't last long. And of course, they were wrong. Hundreds of millions of people all over the world eat the product Mr. Ando created. It's so inexpensive that even paupers like me can afford to buy it. It is, in this writer's humble opinion, one of the most important inventions of the 20th century.

The company Mr. Ando founded was Nissin Foods. This is the product he invented. In honor of his life, I'm asking everyone to observe three minutes of silence while the noodles cook, followed by some serious slurping. Chopsticks work best, but you can use a fork, as well. And if you want to eat them Japanese-style (no chewing, just swallow the noodles straight down, piping hot), that's fine, too.

Monday's Podcast

Special Commentary! Click Here To Listen!

It was a pretty good show today, considering how depressed I've been feeling lately over issues at work (not enough of it) and at home (not enough to cover the rent due to lack of work). Also, send some prayers and/or positive energy out to Bob Kincaid and his family, as his dad is very ill.

My good friend Sarge called in and he made a great point about how casinos are built on "loser's money".

Thanks to Agnes and Zack for producing the show today, and Ben Burch of White Rose for hosting the archives. They're holding a fundraiser now, by the way.

I'll be back again on Friday, until then, enjoy listening!

And Now, A Word From Our Sponsors

The Spirit Of '87 (Repost)

The Spirit Of '87
A Brief History Of The Electoral College

On October 2nd, 2006, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed state bill AB 2948, the National Popular Vote bill, which would have mandated that California allocate all of its electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who won the national popular election, regardless of which candidate won the popular vote in California. AB 2948 is one of many similar bills pending or to be introduced in state legislatures throughout the country. In Illinois, HB5777 now has 37 Co-Sponsors and has been referred to the Rules Committee. The bills are part of an Interstate Compact, a legally binding contract between states, and the goal behind all of them is the eventual elimination of the Electoral College as the way we elect a President.

In a recent editorial, the Chicago Tribune, which otherwise favors elimination of the Electoral College, praised the Governor's actions, and calls the proposed Compact a "bad gimmick" and a "short cut". "The right way to do it" they say, "is by constitutional amendment, not by extra-constitutional schemes". The Tribune is, of course, free to disagree with the idea behind the Compact, but they're wrong when they assert that "the presumption behind the Electoral College was that each state would choose electors in a way reflecting the popular will there".¹

As with so many other issues confronting the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, the Electoral College came about as a result of compromise, and these compromises came about mainly because the chief goal of the Convention was to find a way to keep the county unified. Separately, the states could be defeated in detail by any number of European nations eager to gain terriitories, or retake formerly held ones, in the New World. England in particular would have liked nothing better than to see the Confederation dissolve. Without this threat, there was no need to form a Union, and the Convention would never have occurred. Even so, the finished product was far from perfect, as they themselves acknowledged: "That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish."²

Further, there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the "popular will" of each state should be a consideration in choosing electors. Certainly the slave states weren't interested in the rights of their slaves, even as their delegates demanded that slaves be counted as part of their population so as to increase their representation in the new Government. The fact that the delegates left no specific instructions concerning the appointment of the electors in the Constitution shows that there was no clear consensus about what guidelines they should follow.

The method of choosing a President was one of the most hotly debated issues of all. Speaking to the Pennsylvania legislature as they debated ratifying the Constitution, delegate James Wilson said that the members of the Convention ". . . were perplexed with no part of this plan so much as with the mode of choosing the President of the United States."³ Virginia's William Grayson added that the use of electors "...seemed rather founded on accident than any principle of government I ever heard of." ⁴ In Publius 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that "The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has esaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents". And many years later, Virginia delegate James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution", wrote that "The difficulty of finding an unexceptionable process for appointing the Executive Organ of a Government such as that of the U.S. was deeply felt by the Convention; and as the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session, it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience. . ."⁵

The idea of a national popular vote had strong supporters, the most vocal of these were Madison, Wilson, his fellow Pennsylvanian Gouvernor Morris, and Massachusetts' Rufus King. They placed their faith in the citizens of the country to make qualified decisions: "If the people should elect the President", said Mr. Morris, "they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character, or services; some man, if he might so speak, of continental reputation. If the Legislature elect, it will be the work of intrigue, of cabal, and of faction; it will be like the election of a pope by a conclave of cardinals; real merit will rarely be the title to the appointment." ⁶ But the difficulties of travel and communication in the late 18th century, the expense of taking a national census, and the different laws of suffrage between the states, among other issues, made the prospect of a national popular vote impracticable.

It was Mr. Wilson who first broached the idea of using electors to choose a National Executive. He and supporters of a national popular vote suggested this format as an alternative to Congressional appointment: their desire was to keep the choice out of the hands of the politicians. "There would be a constant intrigue kept up for the appointment." said Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. "The Legislature and the candidates would bargain and play into one another's hands, votes would be given by the former under promises or expectations from the latter, of recompensing them by services to members of the Legislature or to their friends."⁷ As the debate continued, and as the idea of electors gained acceptance, more practical questions arose: Who would the electors be? How would they be chosen? How many of them should there be, and how should they be apportioned?

Since, in the society of late 18th century America, men of the highest standing would most likely prefer to be Senators or Congressmen, the delegates envisioned electors as a group of men of lesser, but respectable, rank, more knowledgeable than the average citizen; men who would choose a President from a list of qualified candidates. And since there were as yet no political parties, it was assumed they would vote independantly, using their own best judgement. Corruption of the electors from influences both from within and without the country was also of great concern to the delegates: they feared foreign interference in particular. The delegates used three methods to try and prevent this: by making the term of office very short, by having them meet in their respective states rather than one central place (thus making it more difficulr for them to be approached as a group; this method also took into account the difficulties of travel at that time), and by ensuring that they didn't already hold office or were in a position where political favors could be granted in return for their vote.

There were many methods discussed about how electors should be chosen. Supporters of a national popular vote preferred a system where the people would vote for electors by district. Others, in particular those who preferred the rights of states, preferred to have state legislatures choose electors. Mr. Gerry favored having governors choose the electors on the basis that "The people of the States will then choose the first branch, the legislatures of the States the second branch of the National Legislature, and the Executives of the States, the National Executive." ⁸ Alexander Hamilton proposed a two-tiered electoral system where electors would be chosen by the people (voting in districts), and these electors would choose electors who would in turn choose a President. Both of these were rejected as placing too many barriers between the people and the government. In the end, more for expediency than for any other reason, it was decided to give the authority to the state legislators.

The number and apportionment of the electors brought familiar arguments back to the forefront. The smaller states were, as always, worried that the larger states would use their numerical advantage against them. This was answered by giving each state electors equal to the number of Congressmen plus Senators. This also greatly increased the power of the slave states, because the percentage of eligible voters was much lower. As it turned out, in the years before the "winner-take-all" policies, small states had an advantage over the larger states because their populations tended to be more homogenous, and therefore their electors were more unified. Larger states with more diverse populations could find their electoral votes split up, weakening their overall political power.

With the Convention over, and with the Constitution having been ratified, the theory of using electors was finally put to a practical test. Gen. Washington was the clear choice to be President, so his election was almost a matter of formality. But there were serious problems, the worst of which occured in New York, where squabbling between the state Assembly and the state Senate over who their electors would be forced New York to abstain from the election of 1789. And almost immediately it became clear that politics were going to play an important role. Washington's two terms saw the formation of two major political parties: the aristocratic Federalists, formed by Alexander Hamilton, who operated under the principle that "The people who own the country ought to govern it". ⁹, and the Republicans, founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Republicans were the defenders of state's rights and wanted to lessen the influence of "monied interests" in the government. And it became clear to both these parties that control of the Presidency came about through control of state legislatures. Ironically, a system designed to prevent the influence of political parties became a system that required political parties to make it work.

"The will of the people" was therefore very quickly superceded by party machinery. Federalists and Republicans alike began manipulating the state legislatures that they controlled to their own advantage. Electors were no longer chosen for their loyalty to the country or even their states or districts, they were chosen based on loyalty to their party: "The electors of this state are all picked men from the opposite party", complained former New York Governor and candidate George Clinton in 1796, "many of them not of the most dignified character and therefore the most obstinate tools of faction." ¹⁰.

The election of 1800, which resulted in a tie between Jefferson and his ambitious running mate Aaron Burr, forced Congress to choose a President, and after thirty-six ballots they chose Jefferson, who took office without the vote of any Federalist electors, many of whom abstained rather than vote for the Republican. In the wake of the 1796 elections, Congress had already been considering changes to the Constitution, the debacle of 1800 accelerated that process. Unfortunately, with political parties now firmly in charge, the idea of a national popular vote was doomed. Even voting for electors by district lost ground as the states and political parties sought to advance their causes. Larger states in particular did not want to have their electoral votes split between parties, and the idea of a winner-take-all system began to emerge.

The Twelfth Amendment did nothing to alleviate the problems associated with Presidential electors, it only specified that electors declared which candidate they voted for was to be President, and which was to be Vice-President, along with some procedural details dealing with qualifications. The state legislatures still had the power to choose electors however they wanted. And with Republicans now having almost insurmountable majorities in the House, the Senate, and in state legislatures, they took strides to keep it that way. The country was now in the firm control of political parties, the very thing the Founders had sought to prevent.

Finally, The Tribune is also wrong when they state that the compact "plainly violates the spirit of the Constitution". Interstate Compacts have already passed Constitutional muster, with the Supreme Court having ruled on several occasions, most notably Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), that they are quite Constitutional as long as they do not tread on Federal authority, and even so all they would require is Congressional approval ¹¹. But since the Constitution is very clear about who has the authority to choose electors ¹², a state compact isn't even necessary: if they choose to appoint their delegates based on the national popular vote, regardless of whether or not other states do the same, that is entirely up to them. And since the proposed Compact stipulates that it doesn't go into effect until it's approved by enough states to guarantee 270 Electoral votes, states can feel free to approve it without fear of losing its voice.

If the Tribune is seeking a specific phrase to determine the spirit of the Constitution and those who wrote it, they need look no further than the three words the Founders chose to elevate above all the others in the document: We The People. The popular will of the nation, both nationally and within each state, clearly favors the election of the President via national popular vote. It's a testament to the undemocratic nature of our current electoral system and the power of the two political parties, combined with the disproportionate power of the states, that even with such popular support, a Constitutional amendment is a nearly insurmountable obstacle to overcome. The proposed Interstate Compact represents not only the spirit of the Constitution, but the innovative spirit of the American people, seeking to right a wrong regardless of the passage of years and of established tradition, and when confronted by great obstacles. The House of Representatives represents the will of the people on a regional level, the Senate on a statewide level, and the President represents it on a national level. The Compact represents the best opportunity we've had in decades to achieve that ideal.

Notes:
¹ A Bad Gimmick, Oct. 16, 2006
² Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Sept. 17, 1787
³ Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates In The Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 2:511
⁴ Elliot, Debates 3:492
⁵ Madison, James: Letter to Judge George Hay, Aug. 23, 1823, Gaillard Hunt ed., The Writings of James Madison
⁶ Madison, James: Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787:July 17
⁷ Madison, Debates June 2
⁸ Madison, Debates, July 19
⁹ Chief Justice John Jay: Frank Monaghan, John Jay, chapter 15, p. 323 (1935)
¹⁰ Clinton, George, Letter to Michael Leib, Nov. 1796
¹¹ US Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause III: " No state shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state.
¹² US Constitution, Article II, Section 1: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

It's Good To Be The CEO

Civility: A Reminder

Go For The Bronze

Nothing like that Good Old Holiday Depression to keep you from doing anything of consequence. Well, almost anything: I've been reading and researching so as to write a new, more detailed article on the Electoral College for my second boss. It's been helpful, since I haven't done any work for my day job since Christmas.

Obviously there's been a lot going on, with the new Congress getting ready to take on a lot of issues very early, and one issue that's starting to get some more attention is health care. The insurance companies, being confident that they can do pretty much what they want, have started to raise rates like crazy, and drop people from coverage if they show any hint that they might actually get sick and want to collect on it. In this writer's opinion, all insurance is a scam anyway, health insurance in particular. And it only proves that, without anything to counter it, the "invisible hand" of the free market quickly turns into a closed fist.

Paul Krugman had another column on the subject on Monday, but if you can't get behind the wall, you're free to watch NBC's coverage of the Health Care Olympics: