Interesting happenings from DC: crime rate, buried tech center, implosion rumor, & roughshod riding

[skreidle]

You know a fast food restaurant is in a bad part of town when the entire service area--walk-up and drive-through--is encased in bulletproof glass, with alternate-door pass-throughs for handing off food.. (This is the case with the KFC/Taco Bell on South Capitol near Nation, where I stopped for lunch today after missing the poorly-signed 395 exit after the tunnel.) I was also one of two white people in the entire building for about the first ten minutes, until a small group of white businessmen arrived. (And then I headed over to the office, where I did some paperwork, packed some parts for FedEx to take away, arranged or rescheduled some upcoming service calls, and headed home through heavy traffic. :P)

The DC Office of the Chief Technology Officer (DC OCTO) has an interesting building. Tucked into its own fenced-in block on Massachusetts, it gives the appearance of a smallish industrial shed, which happens to be sitting over several basement levels of computers and offices. However, it's not really bunker-like, since at least one of the "underground" levels has a lot of windows.

Speaking of interesting DC happenings, rumor has it that they'll be imploding the old Convention Center next Monday morning! I wanna see! :)

Hey, check this out: Republicans may be planning to use the tyranny of the majority to quash the "tyranny of the minority"--by making filibusters of judicial nominees unconstitutional--by getting the Senate's presiding officer (Cheney, presumably) to rule as such, which would only need a simple majority to pass, rather than the 60% needed to break a filibuster or 67% to change the rules in normal procedure. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Comments

Brief history lesson

[jazzfish]

from Political Animal. "Bottom line: Yes, Democrats are filibustering some of George Bush's judges, but they're doing it only because Republicans have relentlessly dismantled all the avenues of dissent they themselves took advantage of back when Democrats controlled the Senate. There's no principle involved in this, just a raw exercise of power."

Re: Brief history lesson

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's any need to be condescending. I said that there were angles of this issue, like the fact that the judiciary is in real, actual trouble, that need to be considered extremely thoughtfully. I also came out on what appears to be your side of the issue.

Re: Brief history lesson

[jazzfish]

I apologise if I came across as condescending. I'd noted the Political Animal post when it was made, expecting to hear about the judicial filibuster from other of my acquaintances. Being given a chance to put it to use was too much to pass up, but I was too tired to actually make any rational argument to go along with it. (Said argument basically consisting of "you're right, but I don't think social liberals can afford to try and play nice," only better thought out and phrased.)