Leaderboard

On #2, don't think a limit works, but do think they need to hold the floor to sustain it! If it's important to them several will have to work together--and be seen to be working to obstruct whatever it is. NO MORE of this SILENT HOLD bullshit!

Finally!! Somebody tells it like it is and to Fox's face too. Three cheers for Tom Ricks. I've grown more than weary of the likes of Brokaw and others playing like these guys are authentic journalists. It's guys like Brokaw who give journalism a bad name, not Fox, because these guys cannot be objective and truthful about calling out their own institutions. It's like one has to catch Ailes, Krystol, McConnell and Behner pants down in a circle jerk in the closet before one can infer there is some mutual glad-handing going on between those fellows. (Pun intended.) Truthfully that is only half the problem with journalism. The other issue is these guys are confused about the purpose of journalism. Many, probably most if one gauges by observation, believe it is limited to purveying propaganda to the people from all sources about issues rather seeking to determine the facts and veracity of views before informing the people. And when that veracity is unsettled, they leave it to the readers to ferret out the facts rather than present them in a cogent form for the people and provide independent information that bears on the issues. Most of the time journalists leave the issues as a 'he said - she said' argument which does nothing for informing the people. It is not that good journalism is never done, just done too infrequently by too few. The reasons are several: some 'reporters' (eg. Brokaw) feel they should not put a thumb on the scales, even if that thumb consists of verified facts or an independent assessment of the issue. Of course that takes effort and sometimes guile to accomplish. So some are just lazy. Some are incompetent -- too stupid or clueless to ferret out the information. Some worry that it will offend guests to call into question their views with countervailing facts. Journalism management does certainly. They want talking heads to attract viewers which garner ratings which increase advertising rates. (Thou shalt not offend guests by too deeply dissecting their positions.) Of course this does happen on occasion but is more the exception than the rule. One sees very few journalists of the caliber of Edward R Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, Eric Severeid, Harry Reasoner, etc. who thought they were there to inform the people and to hold government and institutions accountable. To be honest, these people frequently were a pain in the ass to their management. They stepped on some powerful toes in their pursuit of the profession but... they were first class journalists. I'm not even sure they could exist in today's environment.

That's bullshit. McConnell and Reid struck a deal about a more reserved use of the filibuster for this Senate session which McConnell then promptly ignored. He is an unreliable partner when it comes to mutual understandings about the filibuster. Once bitten, twice shy. First time shame on you, second time shame on me. There should be no second time. 1. Filibusters should be reserved exclusively for final voting on a bill. No more filibusters allowed for motions to bring up bills for discussion. 2. The filibuster should be made more exceptional to prohibit its flagrant use. The number of filibusters per year or per session should be limited -- like timeouts in a football game. Each senator should be free to use it whenever he wanted knowing that it will be his only filibuster for the year. If he wishes to piss it away on a frivolous choice that is his call. I suspect most will choose to 'keep their powder dry' for a rainy day.