The Senate had begun the debate on the FISA bill. Again, this is the one that will likely lead to retroactive immunity from lawsuits and prosecution for all the telephone companies that surrendered on bended knee to Bush’s demand that they cooperate with warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. You, know, the ones Bush claimed weren’t happening a couple years ago. Senator Leahy pulled the provisions out, but Majority Leader Reid is insisting on them, bringing us to a showdown – a showdown led by Chris Dodd in the form of a filibuster.

And not just a cloture vote filibuster, a talk-it-do-death filibuster, where Dodd will simply not yield the floor. Where he needs help is on breaks – he can take questions of up to 20 minutes long, which can give him a chance to catch his breath. So far only Senators Kennedy and Feingold have agreed to back him up. At this point, if any Senators are serious about this, they have to do more than spout anti-Bush soundbites, they have to back the filibuster (although at least our guys are showing up – unlike the likes of Presidential candidates Clinton, Obama and Biden who, after voicing sometimes tepid support for Dodd, have simply turned tail and run on the issue, opting to be conveniently on the campaign trail, rather than in the Senate doing their jobs. Cowards.).

Where are our two Senators – Leahy and Sanders, perennial heroes of civil rights and progressivism? Dunno. Haven’t seen a statement or heard anything about their participation in the filibuster. Still, you can hardly blame them. There are more important things to worry about, after all. Why, I only just received this attachment from Bernie’s office within the last hour. You remeber Bernie – the one who waxed activist about how much more impact a single Senator can have while he was on the campaign trail?

Mr. Roger Goodell

Commissioner

National Football League

280 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Dear Commissioner Goodell:

We write to express our concern that many Vermonters may not be able to see the final regular season game of the year between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants on December 29. Under the NFL’s current policies, New England Patriots fans in Boston and New York Giants fans in New York City will be able to see the game on free television, but most Vermonters will not. (snip)

PATRICK LEAHY, United States Senator

BERNARD SANDERS, United States Senator

PETER WELCH, United States Representative

Well, thank heavens Bernie & Patrick. We’ve all got out priorities straight today. Civil liberties can always wait for football.

God help us all (click here for a previous diary with contact info). Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m waiting to meet my kid so we can look at the World Series trophy in the Statehouse today…

From this evening's WaPo:

 Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee who currently lists his party affiliation as “Independent Democrat,” will break party ranks today to endorse Sen. John McCain's presidential bid, according to sources close to the Arizona Republican The announcement will be made Monday in New Hampshire where Lieberman's moderate credentials may well help convince influential independent voters to support McCain.

Maybe we should just call him Darth Lieberman. 

(This diary’s getting interesting and the discussion has drawn in someone you’re all familiar with. Sweet! – promoted by Brattlerouser)

Those  of you following SPS' “The Importance of Growth” and its excellent discussion might find this interesting. Now, admittedly, I know very little of economic theory; my forte is moreso social science and history. And so I was intrigued by Tom Flynn's Op-ed about growth in the latest issue of Free Inquiry, called “Beyond Ponzi Economics”. Now, Flynn is no economist either, but he brings up a point that is something I'm sure many of us have reflected upon:

One sign that the social sciences are not yet mature is that human beings still don’t know how to create establishments that can excel without growing a percent or so each year. Idealists say “Small is beautiful,” but we haven’t figured out how to achieve “Small is workable.” This would pose no problem if limitless growth were possible. But it’s not, at least while humans remain constrained by the finite resources of planet Earth.

I tend to agree with Flynn. Even the most progressive, socially responsible societies still frame their progress as 'smart growth”, as if they are unwilling or unable to even conceptualize the possibility of success without growing. Of course, an environmental sensiblilty needs to be at the heart of this kind of planning and thinking.  But when I hear “sustainablity” mentioned in many of these discussions, how long are we talking about? A generation? 500 years? Is it possible to have an economic model in which a society can be in stasis or even shrink and still be a successful one?

Flynn believes that our current models of growth are inextricably linked to our environmental problems in large regards because of population (and overpopulation) growth:

There’s just one little problem: nobody knows how to make a shrinking polity run smoothly. The large political, economic, and social establishments we’re familiar with are Ponzic to the core.

Instead, panicky governments perpetuate overpopulation so the wheels won’t fall off of their growth-dependent eco­nomies. Faced with the prospect of population decline several years ago, Australia started paying bounties, now $3,000 per child, tragically sparking a new baby boom. European countries that had offered tax incentives for larger families are experimenting with bounties too. Spain plans to offer $3,400 per child and Germany $2,530. The Euro­pean Parlia­ment has called for measures to expand immigration throughout the EU. If overpopulation activists are right, such policies are shortsighted and de­struc­tive. But you can’t really blame to­day’s political leaders, who know they lack the tools to manage shrinking societies in ways that discourage social dislocation and unrest.

In my view, we desperately need to re­­place today’s outmoded, growth-de­pend­ent economic and political structures with shrinkage-friendly, non-Ponzic successors. Yet, I’ve seen little evidence that the social sciences are rising to this challenge. Can we develop alternative structures that don’t de­mand the lubrication of continual growth but can flourish even while contracting? Can we create them in time? Is anybody working on this?

My question is one of the age-old variety in that if what Flynn discusses is possible, how would the change come? Gradually? Cataclysmically? Is it even possible? It seems like a major paradigm shift would be in order. Here's to hoping there's time for that.