We can all talk the talk about eating local, but can we walk the walk? Justin Yu thinks so. Chef Yu, who up until recently ran the popular Whole Ox Deli on Oahu, preached his passion for using the whole animal in restaurant settings to a group of culinary students at the Taste of the Hawaiian Range event on the Big Island.
Justin Yu speaking to culinary stude千花网
The increased Democratic margin in the Senate has important implications far beyond an additional vote or two for key legislation. It has empowered the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to publicly commit to reform of the Senate Rules.
Reid will not end the filibuster — he’s too much of a Senate traditionalist for that — but he wants to restore its historic role as an occasional safety valve, not a routine road-block. So he’s likely to make changes like eliminating the filibuster-before-the filibuster, on the “motion to proceed”, get rid of anonymous holds, and force those who wish to filibuster to stand up and do so — instead of being able to simply stop the Senate by withholding unanimous consent.
Reid had earlier said that his 2010 decision not to change the rules had been a mistake. But his ability to correct that mistake depended on the size of his margin as Majority Leader, since not all Democrats are enthusiastic about reform. And the effective 55 vote caucus that came out of Tuesday’s election enabled Reid to make a public commitment: “I think the rules have been abused, and we are going to work to change them. We will not do away with the filibuster, but we will make the senate a more meaningful place. We are going to make it so we can get things done.”
While some speculated that there were Republican senators who might join, in the belief that if they recapture the Senate after 2014 they too will need the ability to make the Senate work, the hard right immediately try to filibuster the decision about rules for the filibuster! They did begin to frame simple majority rule in adopting Senate procedures at the beginning of a Congress as “the nuclear option.” Their argument is that whatever the Constitution says, the procedural vote by the Senate decades ago that closing off debate requires 60 votes is a permanent change which can only be modified by — 60 votes — even at the beginning of a new Senate. The decision about this question however, will, in fact, be made by a simple majority — and the Senate will still be standing and not a white more radioactive than it is today. But the deep hostility of the hard right to majority rule — reflected in their affection for voter suppression and unlimited influence for wealthy donors — comes through here as well.
Changing the Senate rules as Reid proposes is not just a procedural tweak — it makes a fundamental difference in the relative power of the Senate and House, and means that if House Tea Party Caucus members continue to pass legislation that will not stand the scrutiny of public debate, Reid can put more popular alternatives on the Senate floor and make Republicans choose, instead of hiding behind unanimous consent. It’s a major step forward to restoring a functional Congress, and ending the threat I have written about previously — that like 18th century Poland, the United States would be brought to its knee by allowing a tiny majority to veto critical legislative decisions.
But it’s only one of two procedural changes this Congress needs to make to begin restoring a vital democracy. The other is to tame the flood of bribery flowing into politics in the guise of independent campaign expenditures. Here there is no single fix, no moment in which the Senate (or even the Senate and the House) will vote and solve the problem — because it is rooted in irrational Supreme Court rulings that campaign spending does not create corruption or undue influence on the political process, but is instead simply speech.
In the light of these decisions, particularly those in Citizens United which made corporations voters in their contribution privileges, and another ruling called Speech First allowing unlimited campaign expenditures by independent groups with only the barest fig leaf separating them from a candidate’s campaign, America had its first $6 billion election. The bulks of this week’s reporting is on how much of that money seemed to be wasted, because the candidates on whose behalf it was spent lost anyway. The NRA, for example, didn’t win a single one of the elections on which it spent a total of $17 million. And indeed, once campaigns reach a certain level of funding, additional dollars have only a modest impact on the voters and the outcome.
But that ignores the more important result of unlimited big money in politics — it may not influence the voters, but it surely influences the politicians. The NRA may have lost all 上海桑拿论坛千花网
BEIJING, July 25 (Reuters) – China plans to invest 1.7 南京桑拿网蒲友交流
With 43 lobbyists and a federal influence-peddling budget of at least $35 million this past election cycle, Chevron must have an ambitious agenda for the politicians in Washington, DC.
The company just paid $4.3 billion to acquire Atlas Energy and its extensive holdings in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale so first and foremost on the company’s agenda will be fighting any efforts to have the federal government regulate hydraulic fracturing. Second, 爱上海同城论坛手机版