The Mystery of the Unused Shea Butter Machines

Often things that other people do or say make no sense at all.  Until you see the story from their point of view.  

Maria Karlya is a Peace Corps volunteer serving in Ghana.  In an article in the Fall 2010 Worldview magazine she writes about the problem of the shea butter machines that are locked up in an old factory, while the women keep laboriously whipping the shea nut butter by hand. (I didn't know what shea butter was either so I looked it up.)  They work so much harder than necessary, but the machines go unused.

So Maria contacted Adisa, an Ghanaian woman who works at an NGO that helps women to become self sustaining.  Her encounter with Adisa leads to another long story about Peace Corps and Adisa's life, but for this post I'm just concerned with the shea butter mystery.


After a long conversation with Adisa, Maria asks her about the shea butter machines.  Adisa responds:

"Maria, here is the problem.  Making shea butter is a social event for these women.  All day, they are in the house serving their men and children.  They can't discuss their problems, because the men will hear.  They have no privacy.  But when they are under the trees making shea butter, the men won't mind them.  That's when they can talk.  They give advice to their daughters;  they share ideas and discuss their troubles.  They cherish that time.  Those machines are incredibly loud, and only a few can use them at a time.  The process ceases to be social. . ."

I try to remind myself that most things do make sense if you have all the data.  Especially at home.  But my wife will tell you I forget a lot.  

New Hungarian Law Has Chilling Effect on Media including Blogs

Deutsche Welle says:

Lawmakers in Hungary have given a controversial new body powers to oversee public news production and levy high fines on private media that break rules on political reporting.

The Hungarian parliament passed the law establishing the National Media and Communications Authority (NMHH) on Monday evening, according to the Hungarian national news agency MTI.

Some 1,500 protesters gathered outside the parliament in the hours before the vote, claiming that it would restrict press freedom, after an appeal was made on the social network site Facebook.

The BBC writes

Unbalanced coverage or breaches of the rules on coverage of sex, violence or alcohol are now expected to prompt the imposition of sanctions by the new authority.

The NMHH will be able to impose fines of up to 200m forints (£615,000; $955,000) on TV and radio stations, MTI reported.

Newspapers could face fines of up to 25m forints and news websites 10m forints.
A media freedom representative for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Dunja Mijatovic, said the law "could lead to all broadcasting being subordinated to political decisions".

Freedom House also warned that it would be "a major setback for press freedom in Hungary". The definition of "violations" is "very broad", it added.

The NMHH is dominated by Fidesz appointees, Reuters news agency reports.
The government argues that the new law is long overdue, saying Hungary's legislation needs to catch up with rapid developments in media technology and content.

Reuters adds:

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said it [the new Hungarian law] severely restricted print and online media, which runs counter to OSCE standards.

"Regulating print media can curb media freedom and free public debate, which are indispensable elements of democracies," OSCE media freedom representative Dunja Mijatovic wrote in a report.

"Regulating online media is not only technologically impossible but it exerts a chilling, self-censoring effect on free expression."

From the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe.

Strasbourg, 23.12.2010 – “In a democracy, media must not be treated as enemies of the state. The Media and Communications Authority  to be established in Hungary on 1 January is an alarming sign that Hungary wishes to police the media,” said Markku Laukkanen (Finland, ALDE), the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Media of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

“Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of expression, information and opinion throughout Europe. We see an overly broad Hungarian legislation, which enables state authorities to impose severe sanctions on media for having raised political criticism. This will cause a severe chilling effect on media freedom and would therefore in principle violate Article 10,” Mr Laukkanen said.

“The PACE Sub-Committee on the Media will discuss the state of media freedom in Europe in January 2011. I do hope that the Hungarian government will have clearly set by then the limits on this new Media and Communications Authority, which must not function like the censorship bodies sadly known in Hungary under communist and fascist rule. Media censorship has no place in the democratic Europe of today.”

There is also a video press conference on this bill at the European Commission.

I try to keep loaded words out of my posts.  The basis for saying 'chilling effect' in the title is a message I got from a Hungarian blogger I've been reading for several years who has shut down his blog because of fear he might run afoul of the law.  That, by definition, is what chilling effect means.  And that's what caused me to look into this more.

Roots, Ribs, Sidewalks

Why cut a beautiful, healthy tree growing in the city?

I was taking advantage of the sunshine and warm temps to go for a run Saturday morning from the motel to my mom's place. (Which was full up with our kids.) 

And saw a long row of cut trees.  And there was probably a good reason when I saw what the roots had done to the sidewalk.  But it's not the big buckling that's a problem for me.  It's the part where the next slab sticks up about two inches.

Shortly after taking those pictures, the toe of my shoe caught the edge, and I went airborne, all in slow motion now.  I thought about the dislocated finger caused by just such a flight a year and a half ago, I saw the grass to my left, I pulled in my arms, pulled down my head and landed in beautiful shoulder roll and was back up on my feet all probably in no more than three or four seconds.

But when I started walking I could feel the ribs on my left side.  I had about a mile to go and walking wasn't bad.  I eventually started a slow run and made it ok.  But the ribs were very tender.  I slept on my right side last night and things are a better today. 

AIFF 2010: Features - My Choices v. Festival Choices

 Three films in each category got recognized by the Anchorage International Film Festival juries and by the audiences.

AIFF 2010 Jury Awards - Features

Winner The Wild Hunt Alexandre Franchi (Canada 2009)
Runner-Up The Drummond Will Alan Butterworth (UK 2010)
Honorable Mention Bai Yin Di Guo (Empire of Silver) Christina Shu-hwa Yao (China/Hong Kong/Taiwan 2009)


AIFF 2010 Audience Awards - Features

Winner Bai Yin Di Guo (Empire of Silver) Christina Shu-hwa Yao (China/Hong Kong/Taiwan 2009)
Runner-Up Son Istasyon (Last Station) Ogulcan Kirca (Turkey 2010)
Honorable Mention The Drummond Will Alan Butterworth (UK 2010)

My choices (With a caveat, of course.  It really makes no sense to make films compete for various reasons I'll mention below.  But I've decided to bite the bullet and pick three that make me feel most satisfied looking back at the festival.  And I've added two extras.  The first three are not distinguished in priority. The fourth is a runner up, and the fifth is in a different category as an invited film)

What Do I know?  Most Satisfying/Thought Provoking Features (three way tie)

Fanny, Annie, and Danny,  Chris Brown  USA
Temptation of St. Tony Veiko Õunpuu  Estonia
Hello Lonesome Alan Butterworth UK

Runner Up:  22:44   Markus Hautz   Austria


I'll add one more which was a special feature (meaning it was invited and not in the running for an award)

The Red Machine  Alec Boehm  S. Argy   USA

Below is the list of all the features at the festival.  As I compiled the list, I realized that we saw all but two.  Those two are at the bottom.  

Films I saw:
22:44   Markus Hautz   Austria
Ashes  Elias Matar  USA
Bai Yin Di Guo [Empire of Silver]*   Christina Shu-hwa Yao  China
The Drummond Will*  Alan Butterworth  UK
Fannie, Annie & Danny  Chris Brown   USA
Hello Lonesome*   Adam Reid   USA
Karma Calling*  Sarba Das  USA
The Red Machine  Alec Boehm  S. Argy   USA

The Silent Accomplice  Erik Knudsen  UK
Son Istasyon [Last Station]*  Ogulcan Kirca  Turkey
Temptation of St. Tony*  Veiko Õunpuu  Estonia
Ticked Off Trannies With Knives  Israel Luna  USA
The Wild Hunt*  Alexandre Franchi   Canada

Films I didn't see:  
Rocksteady   Mustapha Khan  USA
The Violent Kind   The Butcher Brothers   Phil Flores  Mitchell Altieri USA

* means in competition

My Problem with Choosing "Best"

In the Olympics, in sports like diving and gymnastics, they give people more points if they do a more difficult dive or routine. If you make a mistake in a harder routine, you could still beat a perfect, but less challenging one.

How can you compare a multi-million dollar movie with one that cost a half-million, or one that cost $50,000? How do you compare a movie that does a good job in a fairly familiar genre from one that takes risks by trying something different? I could do several lengthy posts on this topic, but you get the point. 


Why my choices compared to the Jury and Audience choices.

The Festival winners:

Empire of Silver was an epic historical drama full of magnificent photography and interesting characters. I must admit some bias against the film at first, because the reviews I read from Hong Kong and Taiwan weren't very good. From screen daily review

[Empire of Silver] will have some purchase in Asia. But elsewhere, this will face the distribution dilemma of decent but unexceptional Chinese costumers like The Banquet: there’s little beyond one relatively flatline swordfight here to keep the action fans happy, and not enough dramatic substance for more highbrow audiences. 

And this Twitch review:

Down but not completely out, then, Empire of Silver is far more than a curio. Its weaknesses may condemn it to relative obscurity outside mainland China or the main Asian markets but for anyone willing to look the other way every so often it is still very much worth watching. Gorgeously presented, with enough star power to keep the viewer engaged, while undeniably incomplete what's left here comes recommended nonetheless.

So when I finally got to see Empire of Silver I was pleasantly surprised.  The cinematography is beautiful.  The movie comes from a trilogy by Cheng Yi, so condensing three novels into a two hour movie already sets the viewer up for some confusion.  Plus viewers who know nothing about Chinese history have no context.  I was even more frustrated because two nights before I finally saw the film in Best of the Fest, I had driven director Christina Yao back to her B&B and wasn't ready to ask the questions I wanted to ask after the film.

Clearly the Anchorage audience wasn't too upset about following all the details, because they chose it the Audience Award winner.  And its coverage of a banking crisis 100 years ago certainly gives it more relevance to US viewers today.  The website - which I avoided before the movie - gives extensive explanation that I would recommend to read before the movie to help viewers appreciate it at a richer level.

I'd also like to know more about the role of Chinese women directors and what I thought was a lot more focus on women's rights than I recall from other Chinese movies.

This was clearly a well financed movie that tells an interesting story reasonably well and I don't quibble with the the jury or audience awarding this film.  I just was more stirred by other movies.

The Drummond Will

I also enjoyed this - in Best of the Fest - but didn't move me particularly.  It was a British murder comedy and I didn't think it did anything particularly new or inventive.


The Wild Hunt

I've written about this one already.  It had lots of potential as it explored notions of reality and fantasy but I found the main female character particularly empty.  While she may reflect lots of young women, we didn't learn much about her except that she dumped her boyfriend in a way that kept him dangling just in case and went off to explore some bizarre options. 



The Last Station

This one was mainly interesting to me because of its glimpse of modern Turkey.  It had the feel of a soap opera, but was an engaging movie. The discussion  after the film with the film maker and his father - the lead actor - added some context I could only guess at.  The film addressed similar issues (conflicts between old and new values as capitalism creates new winners and losers** and ethical challenges) that were addressed in the Temptation of St. Tony in a more accessible film style and with less depth.  But while the film gave us an in-depth understanding of the older generation's perspective, it wasn't clear to me how all the children went so astray.  Especially since the best friend's son did not go astray. 

Let me end here and discuss the ones I chose in part 2. 

**St. Tony's creators would probably say only losers, the winners only are materially better off.

Hurtling Through the Sky in a Metal Tube

Assume it's 1527 London and Thomas Cromwell is telling Cardinal Woolsey that he can just get into a metal tube and fly to France without having to get seasick crossing the English Channel. 


Or riding up the Congo in the late 19th Century telling Joseph Conrad  he can return to Europe by air. 

I'm still amazed that we get into these metal tubes and fly 37,000 feet above the trees and rocks and waves.  There I was flying over the US West Coast, but lost in Cromwell and Woolsey's England as I read Wolf Hall, while the woman next to me was lost in the Congo reading King Leopold's Ghost. 

Earlier we got to the airport with time to spare, the long lines at security weren't there.  We walked through at 7:50am without anyone in front of us.  That gave us time to get some walking in before having to sit for 6 hours. We figure the distance from the end of Terminal B to the end of Terminal C in the Anchorage Airport is .14 miles.  So one lap is about .28 miles, and 3.5 laps would be close to a mile.  We got about 40 minutes walk in before going to our gate.  The geese in Terminal B were decorated in Christmas garb.

The sky was rosy above the Chugach as we passed over Prince William sound around 10am.

Seattle was socked in. 

But we got to see Pat McGuire's FOOD CHAIN:  Silver Salmon and Herring as we went from Terminal D to Terminal C to catch the plane on to LA.









It was great to be picked up by my mom and son.  The rain was gone and moon is shining bright.  We hooked up with my daughter and her friend for dinner.  Good times. 






Merry Christmas to all who celebrate it.  For the rest, enjoy the time off and I hope you have some family and/or friends nearby and you enjoy your time with them. 

Off to Visit Mom and the Kids

It doesn't happen often, but the basic family is scheduled to be together for a couple of days in LA.  We're headed out this morning and our kids are already with their grandmother.  Our house sitter was over yesterday to get the keys and check on the plant watering schedule.  He's been here before and so there wasn't much to go over. 

Alaska Energy Rating with Kyle Lepping

We signed up with the State last May for an energy audit rebate.  The State will reimburse people with $325 for the audit and up to $10,000 more for implementing projects recommended in the audit.  Someone had recommended a good rater, but he said we had to get on the State list and there was a wait.  We were something like 1200th on the list. 

Well, in November we finally got on the list and Kyle Lepping's firm (the one that had been recommended) was notified and we set up a date.

I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I wasn't quite prepared for all that happened.  He brought all this equipment in.  I thought the telescopic ladder (next to the red case on the bottom right) was very cool.  He also had a smoke generator so he could see which way the draft was going.  the frame goes on the door way with a plastic cover, then he took a fan out of the red case and used it to depressurize the house so he could see where leaks came in - around windows, electrical sockets, etc. 



Here's Kyle in his vest of many pockets and gadgets, and his nifty head lamp checking in the garage.

Throughout he acted as though being middle of the clutter wars was perfectly normal. 

He had his BPI Patch on his shoulder.  Their website says:

We are a national standards development and credentialing organization for residential energy efficiency retrofit work – providing training through a network of training affiliate organizations, individual certifications, company accreditations and quality assurance programs. As an independent, not-for-profit organization, we bring together leading building science experts from across North America to develop our standards using a consensus-based methodology.
The result? Sustainable, green-collar jobs in local communities that improve the comfort, health, safety, durability and energy efficiency of America’s existing houses.

Kyle said there were only a few BPI certified contractors and raters in the state.  Federal energy loans which are coming up in the future will require certified contractors to do the work, but the State program doesn't.

Here he has the front door open and is using the frame to hold the plastic in place and the hole is where he's about to put the fan.


On the video he explains a bit what he's doing and then explains his report at the end.  I've left about five minutes of the report and then cut off the rest.   [I'm having trouble uploading the video.  I'll add it when it works later.]

Supreme Court On Cable, Online? Specter Said Yes

In his "Closing Arguments" Sen. Arlen Specter didn't mince words when talking about the US Supreme Court.

• The Next Congress should try to stop the Supreme Court from further eroding the constitutional mandate of separation of powers. . .

• Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising, thus effectively undermining the basic democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote.

• Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes. Then he moved the bases.

Recognizing the separation of powers doctrine limits what Congress can do, Specter recommends televising Supreme Court proceedings.

  . . . Congress could at least require televising the Court proceedings to provide some transparency to inform the public about what the Court is doing since it has the final word on the cutting issues of the day. Brandeis was right when he said that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

   The Court does follow the election returns, and the Court does judicially notice societal values as expressed by public opinion. Polls show that 85 percent of the American people favor televising the Court when told that a citizen can only attend an oral argument for 3 minutes in a chamber holding only 300 people. Great Britain, Canada, and State supreme courts permit television.

   Congress has the authority to legislate on this subject, just as Congress decides other administrative matters such as what cases the Court must hear, time limits for decisions, number of Justices, the day the Court convenes, and the number required for a quorum. While television cannot provide a definitive answer, it could be significant and may be the most that can be done consistent with life tenure and judicial independence.

But opening the Supreme Court to television is going to take a lot of citizen pressure.  It's hard getting Congress to open up.

From C-Span's website

On November 9, 2010, C-SPAN sent a letter to U.S. House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the presumptive next speaker, requesting that the House allow floor proceedings to also be covered by C-SPAN cameras.
House floor debates are currently televised by cameras owned, operated, and controlled by the House. Reaction shots and wide shots of the chamber are not permitted under House rules. C-SPAN, as well as other media outlets, must use the floor feed provided by the House in its coverage. Congressional policy does allow for C-SPAN's coverage of other Congressional events, such as committee hearings, press conferences, speeches, and the like, to be produced by its own cameras. C-SPAN argues that allowing its cameras to be installed in the House chamber would give the public a more complete and transparent view of Congressional debates. If granted permission to install cameras, C-SPAN proposes to make its feed available to accredited media and stream it live on its web site. 

[emphasis added in all the quotes above]

C-Span's been writing letters like this for a long time.  Here's a linked list of the letters they've sent to Congress, the Supreme Court, and others requesting access to televise proceedings.  And a couple of politely negative responses. 

C-SPAN's Requests for Increased Camera Coverage

Throughout its nearly 32-year history, C-SPAN has pushed for greater public access to the federal government, requesting more television access to the House and Senate and to the Supreme Court. Samples of earlier correspondence are listed below.

• Letter to Minority Leader Boehner Nov. 2010
• C-SPAN Health Care Letter Dec. 2009
• Response Letter From Minority Leader on C-SPAN Health Care Letter Jan. 2010
• Letter to the Gridiron Dinner Committee 2010
• Response Letter From the Gridiron Dinner Committee 2010
• Letter to Speaker Pelosi 2007
• Response Letter From Speaker Pelosi 2006
• Letter to Speaker Pelosi 2006
• Letter to Chief Justice Roberts 2005
• Letter to Speaker Gingrich 1995
• Letter to Majority Leader Dole 1995
• Letter to Speaker Gingrich 1994

Back in the mid-80s I was convinced that the Anchorage Assembly needed to be on cable and worked hard to make it happen.  The basic concerns were things like:

• Assembly members will play to the cameras
• Poor people wouldn't have access
• People, in general, wouldn't watch, so
• It wasn't worth the cost

We got the Assembly to try it out for six months and found a low cost videographer who was willing - after some convincing - to use volunteer camera operators.

In only a couple of weeks the doubters were convinced.  They told me things like:

• people come up to me in the market and say they saw me on cable
• people testify, saying, "I saw this on television and had to come down. . ."

And they realized that poor people tend to have cable - it's much cheaper, per month, than taking the family to the movies.  

There is NO LEGITIMATE excuse not to have the Supreme Court arguments live on television and online.   "Dignity of the Institution" and such excuses are, well, just excuses.  The less Americans see, the more they speculate.  The more they see, the more they understand.  It's pretty simple.  The majority of American people can be trusted to watch democracy happen live.  The quality of our democracy improves as people see what is really going on.  People are much more likely to listen or watch than read. (Note:  this is opinion, not necessarily fact.)

Yes some will try to abuse the broadcasts and play snippets out of context on YouTube.  So what?  Others will correct them, because they'll have access to the whole proceedings.  The only possible losers are judges who aren't competent or are not fulfilling their duties.

While writing this I came across the name Carl Malamud.  He's someone we all should know.  He's used his imagination and understanding of how people work to get government information online.  James Fallow wrote:

. . . An internet innovator named Carl Malamud is correcting this with a kind of web-based supplement to C-Span. Ten years ago Malamud tricked the Securities and Exchange Commission into making corporate financial data available free, on line. The corporate filings were already public in theory but in practice were hard to find. Malamud set up his own free web site with searchable access to the filings . After two years of operation, when the site had become widely popular, he said he would close it in 60 days and told people how to complain to the SEC if they wanted to keep getting the data. The resulting public demand forced the SEC to set up its own site.

Malamud is now doing the same thing with hearings. The committees have their own webcasting services to record their meetings, but the recordings are not centrally catalogued or, in most cases, easy to download. Also, C-Span asserts copyright over its own recordings, so they cannot be distributed over the web. Malamud is amassing the committees' recordings, converting them to a standard format, and making them available, free. If you go to www.archive.org and enter the search term "hooptedoodle" (a literary allusion to John Steinbeck), you'll see his collection. He hopes people will eventually ask why Congress is not doing this job itself. . . 

Skype Seems to Be Having Problems

I can't get onto skype.  It seems others are having similar problems. 

From tech.spreadit.org

After Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Amazon suffered major down time, earlier today Skype was the latest internet service to suffer a long power outage – and it appears that the massive interruption of service is global.
Skype tweeted a message from their Twitter page at 12PM ET where they apologized for the inconvenience and promised to find the cause of the problem.
The tweet read:

“Some of you may have problems signing in to Skype – we’re investigating, and we’re sorry for the disruption to your conversations.”

Skype posted another tweet at 1 PM that said:

“Our engineers and site operations team are working non-stop to get things back to normal – thanks for your continued patience.”

The internet voice call giant issued a third statement explaining the outage:

Under normal circumstances, there are a large number of supernodes available. Unfortunately, today, many of them were taken offline by a problem affecting some versions of Skype. As Skype relies on being able to maintain contact with supernodes, it may appear offline for some of you.
What are we doing to help? Our engineers are creating new ‘mega-supernodes’ as fast as they can, which should gradually return things to normal. This may take a few hours, and we sincerely apologise for the disruption to your conversations. Some features, like group video calling, may take longer to return to normal.

Currently, we have no more information on the causes of the interruption or when service will be up and running again – which means that over 8 million users must be very angry not to have their conversations restored.

"Supreme Court Has Been Eating Congress's Lunch" - Senator Arlen Specter's Exit Interview

Brief Overview:

   I've tried to organize this speech by main topic areas and have highlighted key points.  In doing so I don't keep the order of Specter's speech.  I begin with a brief intro to the idea of exit interviews and then identify highlights of Spector's speech.  Here's the link to Sen. Specter's speech on his website.

Here are what I see as the main points:

End of Senate as Forum of Great Debate 

• Nobody on Senate Floor 
• Cooperation Across Party Lines has Ended 
• Party Loyalty and Retribution  
• Compromise Becomes a Bad Word 
• Polarization and Campaign Attacks Based On Single Vote 
• Murkowski's Write-In Win is Sign of Hope  
• Senators' Right to Make Amendments Limited While Filibuster Threats Stop Debate 

Recommendations on Senate Rules

Recommendations on Supreme Court,  National Institute of Health and Senate Travel


Start of Post:



Exit Interviews:  Why we should pay attention to Sen. Specter


The most successful organizations have exit interviews with employees who are leaving to take advantage of the employee's inside knowledge of the organization, especially when they have nothing to lose by being honest.

[NOTE: Don't believe everything you read. That might sound good, but I have no idea whether 'the most successful organizations" do that or not. And people leaving organizations who have not been forthcoming previously, probably do not change that behavior overnight. But exit interviews can be a source of useful information but here's a contrarian view.]

Senator Arlen Specter gave his version of an exit interview on the floor of the US Senate yesterday (Tuesday). Apparently these are traditionally called something like Farewell Addresses.

[NOTE AGAIN: I'm not sure this is true. The US Senate's Page on Senate Traditions identifies a Senator's Maiden Speech. It does not mention final speeches, though a link does say:

Members deliver floor speeches to honor colleagues who will not be returning for the next Congress. For senior members, those remarks extend through many pages of the Congressional Record and in some instances are subsequently published as Senate documents.]

In any case, Sen. Specter called his address to the Senate not a Farewell Address, but

a closing argument to a jury of my colleagues and the American people outlining my views on how the Senate and, with it, the Federal Government arrived at its current condition of partisan gridlock, and my suggestions on where we go from here on that pressing problem and the key issues of national and international importance.  [from Specter's speech]

There are reasons to listen to Specter.  He's had 30 years in the US Senate, 28 of which were as a Republican.  In 2009 he switched to a Democrat saying, "he did not leave the Republican party, the party left [him]."  Ironically, the Democrats of Pennsylvania left him too, in the 2010 primary, and he will be replaced in the US Senate by Republican Pat Toomey in January.


In today's channel surfing world, Specter's speech, and his accumulated experience and wisdom,  are likely to be missed altogether by most, and forgotten by those who actually heard or saw it.

So I'd like to hightlight some of his key points and suggest readers take ten minutes from reading Palin blogs or other celebrity distractions and read Specter's 'closing arguments' and then discuss them with your US Senators. (Here's a list of Senate contact info.)

End of Senate as Forum of Great Debate 

• Nobody on Senate Floor

The Washington Post noted the poor attendance at my colleagues' farewell speeches earlier this month. That is really not surprising since there is hardly anyone ever on the Senate floor. The days of lively debate with many Members on the floor are long gone.

[When we visited the Senate in April, there was almost no one listening to the floor.  Sen. Begich was the acting chair.  When I asked how a junior senator got that honor, I was told it wasn't an honor, but a chore.  But Begich and the Senator who took his place used their time well on their Blackberries and reading. ]

• Cooperation Across Party Lines has Ended

Senator Chris Dodd and I were privileged to enter the world's greatest deliberative body 30 years ago. Senators on both sides of the aisle engaged in collegial debate and found ways to find common ground on the Nation's pressing problems.

He lists all the centrists Senators on both sides of the aisles then.  Later he raises:

• Party Loyalty and Retribution

  Senators have gone into other States to campaign against incumbents of the other party. Senators have even opposed their own party colleagues in primary challenges. That conduct was beyond contemplation in the Senate I joined 30 years ago. Collegiality can obviously not be maintained when negotiating with someone simultaneously out to defeat you, especially within your own party.

• Compromise Becomes a Bad Word

. . .``compromise'' has become a dirty word. Senators insist on ideological purity as a precondition. Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine had it right when she said we need to distinguish between the compromise of principle and the principle of compromise. This great body itself was created by the so-called Great Compromise, in which the Framers decreed that States would be represented equally in the Senate and proportionate to their populations in the House. As Senate Historian Richard Baker noted: ``Without that compromise, there would likely have been no Constitution, no Senate, and no United States as we know it today.''

• Polarization and Campaign Attacks Based On Single Vote

Politics is no longer the art of the possible when Senators are intransigent in their positions. Polarization of the political parties has followed.

A single vote out of thousands cast can cost an incumbent his seat. Senator Bob Bennett was rejected by the far right in his Utah primary because of his vote for TARP. It did not matter that Vice President Cheney had pleaded with the Republican caucus to support TARP or President Bush would become a modern Herbert Hoover. It did not matter that 24 other Republican Senators, besides Bob Bennett, out of the 49 Republican Senators voted for TARP. Senator Bennett's 93 percent conservative rating was insufficient.

• Murkowski's Write-In Win is Sign of Hope

  The spectacular reelection of Senator Lisa Murkowski on a write-in vote in the Alaska general election and the defeat of other Tea Party candidates in the 2010 general elections may show the way to counter right-wing extremists. Arguably, Republicans left three seats on the table in 2010--beyond Delaware, Nevada, and perhaps Colorado--because of unacceptable general election candidates. By bouncing back and winning, Senator Murkowski demonstrated that a moderate centrist can win by informing and arousing the general electorate. Her victory proves that America still wants to be and can be governed by the center.
  

• Senators' Right to Make Amendments Limited While Filibuster Threats Stop Debate

The Senate rules allow the majority leader, through the right of his first recognition, to offer a series of amendments to prevent any other Senator from offering an amendment.

That had been done infrequently up until about a decade ago and lately has become a common practice, and, again, by both parties.

By precluding other Senators from offering amendments, the majority leader protects his party colleagues from taking tough votes. Never mind that we were sent here and are paid to make tough votes. The inevitable and understandable consequence of that practice has been the filibuster. If a Senator cannot offer an amendment, why vote to cut off debate and go to final passage? Senators were willing--and are willing--to accept the will of the majority in rejecting their amendments but unwilling to accept being railroaded to concluding a bill without being provided an opportunity to modify it. That practice has led to an indignant, determined minority to filibuster and to deny 60 votes necessary to cut off debate. Two years ago on this Senate floor, I called the practice tyrannical.

The decade from 1995 to 2005 saw the nominees of President Clinton and President Bush stymied by the refusal of the other party to have a hearing or floor vote on many judicial and executive nominees. Then, in 2005, serious consideration was given by the Republican caucus to changing the longstanding Senate rule by invoking the so-called nuclear or constitutional option. The plan called for Vice President Cheney to rule that 51 votes were sufficient to impose cloture for confirmation of a judge or executive nominee. His ruling, then to be challenged by Democrats, would be upheld by the traditional 51 votes to uphold the Chair's ruling.

As I argued on the Senate floor at that time, if Democratic Senators had voted their consciences without regard to party loyalty, most filibusters would have failed. Similarly, I argued that had Republican Senators voted their consciences without regard to party loyalty, there would not have been 51 of the 55 Republican Senators to support the nuclear option.

Recommendations on Senate Rules

There is a way out of this procedural gridlock by changing the rule on the power of the majority leader to exclude other Senators' amendments. I proposed such a rule change in the 110th and 111th Congresses. I would retain the 60-vote requirement for cloture on legislation, with a condition that Senators would have to have a talking filibuster, not merely presenting a notice of intent to filibuster. By allowing Senators to offer amendments and a requirement for debate, not just notice, I think filibusters could be effectively managed, as they had been in the past, and still retain, where necessary, the opportunity to have adequate debate on controversial issues.
   I would change the rule to cut off debate on judicial and executive branch nominees to 51 votes, as I formally proposed in the 109th Congress. Important positions are left open for months, and the Senate agenda today is filled with unacted-upon judicial and executive nominees, and many of those judicial nominees are in areas where there is an emergency backlog. Since Judge Bork and Justice Thomas did not provoke filibusters, I think the Senate can do without them on judges and executive officeholders. There is a sufficient safeguard of the public interest by requiring a simple majority on an up-down vote. I would also change the rule requiring 30 hours of postcloture debate and the rule allowing the secret hold, which requires cloture to bring the matter to the floor. Requiring a Senator to disclose his or her hold to the light of day would greatly curtail this abuse.

Recommendations on Supreme Court,  National Institute of Health and Senate Travel

• Supreme Court

The Next Congress should try to stop the Supreme Court from further eroding the constitutional mandate of separation of powers. The Supreme Court has been eating Congress's lunch by invalidating legislation with judicial activism after nominees commit under oath in confirmation proceedings to respect congressional factfinding and precedents. That is stare decisis. The recent decision in Citizens United is illustrative. Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising, thus effectively undermining the basic democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote. Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes. Then he moved the bases.
   Congress's response is necessarily limited in recognition of the importance of judicial independence as the foundation of the rule of law, but Congress could at least require televising the Court proceedings to provide some transparency to inform the public about what the Court is doing since it has the final word on the cutting issues of the day. Brandeis was right when he said that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
   The Court does follow the election returns, and the Court does judicially notice societal values as expressed by public opinion. Polls show that 85 percent of the American people favor televising the Court when told that a citizen can only attend an oral argument for 3 minutes in a chamber holding only 300 people. Great Britain, Canada, and State supreme courts permit television.
   Congress has the authority to legislate on this subject, just as Congress decides other administrative matters such as what cases the Court must hear, time limits for decisions, number of Justices, the day the Court convenes, and the number required for a quorum. While television cannot provide a definitive answer, it could be significant and may be the most that can be done consistent with life tenure and judicial independence.

• National Institutes of Health

 I urge Congress to substantially increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. When NIH funding was increased from $12 to $30 billion annually and $10 billion added to the stimulus package, significant advances were made on medical research. It is scandalous--absolutely scandalous--that a nation with our wealth and research capabilities has not done more. Forty years ago, the President of the United States declared war on cancer. Had that war been pursued with the diligence of other wars, most forms of cancer might have been conquered.<

• Foreign Travel for Senators  

I also urge colleagues to increase their activity on foreign travel. Regrettably, we have earned the title of ugly Americans by not treating other nations with proper respect and dignity.

He goes on to discuss how his own foreign travel enabled him to understand the world we live in by talking to world leaders and seeing the impacts of US policies in the world.

These are just highlights (and I've added emphasis here and there.) Here's the link to the whole speech.  And here's a list of Senate contact info so you can discuss his suggestions with your own Senators.