nirmalm.com - Michigan State Senate

Warning: Table 's' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT u.*, s.* FROM users u INNER JOIN sessions s ON u.uid = s.uid WHERE s.sid = '7b1ac744ae7db8fe94be91ef97211097' in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc:167) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 811

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc:167) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 488

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc:167) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 489

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc:167) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 490

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc:167) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc on line 491

Warning: array_key_exists() [function.array-key-exists]: The second argument should be either an array or an object in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/module.inc on line 217

Warning: array_key_exists() [function.array-key-exists]: The second argument should be either an array or an object in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/module.inc on line 217

Warning: The table 'watchdog' is full query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', 'Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc:167) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/common.inc on line 141.', 2, '', 'http://www.nirmalm.com/taxonomy/term/22/0/feed', '', '38.107.191.106', 1284051706) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167

Warning: The table 'watchdog' is full query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', 'File &#039;./nirmalkm_drupal/cache_menu.MYD&#039; not found (Errcode: 2)\nquery: SELECT data, created, headers, expire FROM cache_menu WHERE cid = &#039;0:en&#039; in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167.', 2, '', 'http://www.nirmalm.com/taxonomy/term/22/0/feed', '', '38.107.191.106', 1284051706) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167

Warning: The table 'watchdog' is full query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', 'File &#039;./nirmalkm_drupal/cache_menu.MYD&#039; not found (Errcode: 2)\nquery: LOCK TABLES cache_menu WRITE in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167.', 2, '', 'http://www.nirmalm.com/taxonomy/term/22/0/feed', '', '38.107.191.106', 1284051706) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167

Warning: The table 'watchdog' is full query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', 'File &#039;./nirmalkm_drupal/cache_menu.MYD&#039; not found (Errcode: 2)\nquery: UPDATE cache_menu SET data = &#039;a:4:{s:10:\\&quot;path index\\&quot;;a:187:{s:17:\\&quot;admin/build/block\\&quot;;s:3:\\&quot;100\\&quot;;s:22:\\&quot;admin/build/block/list\\&quot;;i:-2;s:27:\\&quot;admin/build/block/configure\\&quot;;i:-3;s:24:\\&quot;admin/build/block/delete\\&quot;;i:-4;s:21:\\&quot;admin/build/block/add\\&quot;;i:-5;s:31:\\&quot;admin/build/block/list/minnelli\\&quot;;i:-6;s:39:\\&quot;admin/build/block/list/bluebreeze-fixed\\&quot;;i:-7;s:33:\\&quot;admin/build/block/list/pushbutton\\&quot;;i:-8;s:34:\\&quot;admin/build/block/list in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167

Warning: The table 'watchdog' is full query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', 'Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc:167) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/common.inc on line 141.', 2, '', 'http://www.nirmalm.com/taxonomy/term/22/0/feed', '', '38.107.191.106', 1284051706) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167
nirmalm.com - Michigan State Senate http://www.nirmalm.com/taxonomy/term/22/0 en 56% Oppose Tax Proposal (EPIC-MRA) http://www.nirmalm.com/56_oppose_tax_proposal_epic_mra_401 EPIC-MRA also <a href="http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6248154&nav=menu44_13">asked a series of questions</a> on the budget. 56% are opposed to the proposal, 64% think that the tax would increase above 2% if passed, and 53% feel that Granholm should make more cuts. <a href="http://www.capitalviewpoint.com/cant_have_it_both_ways_393">Same explanation</a> for this opposition still applies. We need to see Bishop's plan. http://www.nirmalm.com/56_oppose_tax_proposal_epic_mra_401#comments budget Jennifer Granholm Michigan State Senate Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:32:19 -0400 Nirmal 401 at http://www.nirmalm.com AFL-CIO Budget Letter http://www.nirmalm.com/afl_cio_budget_letter_400 Tired of Bishop's budget babble? Tell your legislators you <a href="http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/mibudget">want the budget crisis solved</a> now. http://www.nirmalm.com/afl_cio_budget_letter_400#comments budget Jennifer Granholm Michigan State Senate Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:27:54 -0400 Nirmal 400 at http://www.nirmalm.com Can't have it both ways http://www.nirmalm.com/cant_have_it_both_ways_393 A Detroit Free Press poll released yesterday showed that 58% of Michigan residents <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070318/NEWS06/303170003">oppose the proposed tax</a> on services.  In response, wizardkitten argued that many of the same people opposed to a tax increase would probably <a href="http://wizardkitten.blogspot.com/2007/03/time-to-show-consequences-of-race-to.html">also be opposed</a> to drastic budget cuts. <blockquote>A Freep <a target="_blank" href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070318/NEWS06/303170003">poll</a> this morning tells us that people don't support the service tax idea, but these are people that have not been shown the consequences of not raising some revenue. It would be nice to see a poll on the Republican plans for drastic cuts, wouldn't it? Bet they wouldn't like that, either, because on the flip side, they still want higher spending for health care and education by whopping margins.</blockquote> Unsurprisingly, she's right.  A Detroit Free Press poll released today shows that six in ten Michigan residents <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070319/NEWS06/703190351/1001/rss01">support an increase</a> in higher education funding.  So, the message is that people don't want more taxes, but also do want increases in spending. Obviously, there is a substantial disconnect between the perception of what taxes do and the actual role that taxes play in maintaining our quality of life.  For example, we know from other studies that people <a href="http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/sach_up.html">believe we spend</a> far more on food stamps and foreign aid than what we actually do.  Our perceived budget priorities are not aligned with how that <a href="http://www.mitaxtruth.com/">money is actually spent</a>. This is why it is so important that we actually see the Republican plan for cuts.  As advocates for solving our budget problems through cuts alone, the Senate Republicans have a responsibility to be honest with the people about what their plan entails.  Once people realize that they are going to be affected by particular budget cuts, the public outcry for a solution will start.  It's a matter of awareness. http://www.nirmalm.com/cant_have_it_both_ways_393#comments budget Jennifer Granholm Michigan State Senate Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:18:17 -0400 Nirmal 393 at http://www.nirmalm.com Clip of the Day: Sen. Buzz Thomas YouTube Message http://www.nirmalm.com/sen_buzz_thomas_youtube_message_379 <center><object width="425" height="350"> <param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SFcWbqhS7lg" name="movie" /> <param value="transparent" name="wmode" /><embed width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SFcWbqhS7lg"></embed></object></center> Very appreciated, but <a href="http://www.capitalviewpoint.com/senator_schauer_youtube_message_343">same advice</a> applies. http://www.nirmalm.com/sen_buzz_thomas_youtube_message_379#comments clip of the day Michigan State Senate Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:40:35 -0400 Nirmal 379 at http://www.nirmalm.com Candidates... Talk to us! http://www.nirmalm.com/candidates_talk_us_358 Senator Schauer's <A HREF="http://www.capitalviewpoint.com/senator_schauer_youtube_message_343">recent YouTube message</A> and the <A HREF="http://www.capitalviewpoint.com/heads_michigan_progressive_talk_tv_347">new Michigan Progress TV show</A> are both examples of elected officials in Michigan using new methods to directly communicate with the progressive community in Michigan. There's no reason that candidates in Democratic primaries in Michigan can't do this as well. Perhaps for the first time, candidates have the opportunity to speak to us directly while incurring virtually no costs to themselves. When the time comes, I encourage each one to take the opportunity to introduce themselves to us. http://www.nirmalm.com/candidates_talk_us_358#comments Michigan Congressional Delegation Michigan State House Michigan State Senate michroots Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:13:10 -0500 Nirmal 358 at http://www.nirmalm.com Legislators Need to Stop Selling Us Out http://www.nirmalm.com/legislators_need_stop_selling_us_out_353 The Jackson Citizen-Patriot yesterday editorialized on <a href="http://www.mlive.com/news/jacitpat/index.ssf?/base/news-2/117328532734180.xml&coll=3">lawmakers who sell us out</a> for cushy lobbying jobs as they're being term-limited out of office. <blockquote>But there's a difference between a professional lobbyist whose key asset is information, and a former lawmaker who is capitalizing on relationships within the circle of back-slappin' friends and cronies he or she developed in the Legislature. That's the kind of lobbying that needs reasonable limits. </blockquote> I want to make it clear:  I'm not opposed to lobbyists or the notion that they have a role to play in government.  However, the system of legalized bribery that we currently have now is only made worse by legislators who are worried about their future job prospects. We're faced with a system of warped incentives:  If a legislator is facing term-limits, the incentive to pass legislation that favors their future employers may be greater than their desire to protect the public interest.  That's just wrong. http://www.nirmalm.com/legislators_need_stop_selling_us_out_353#comments Michigan State House Michigan State Senate Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:35:07 -0500 Nirmal 353 at http://www.nirmalm.com Senator Schauer YouTube Message http://www.nirmalm.com/senator_schauer_youtube_message_343 <center><object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gVyEFYvBvwM" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed width="425" height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gVyEFYvBvwM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed></object></center> You've probably already seen this, but just in case you haven't, here ya go. IMO this is a fantastic first step.  It demonstrates a willingness to both reach out to the progressive community and try new things.  Being on YouTube means that anyone can embed it on their blogs and spread the word.  Sure catches our attention, too. Although I am very grateful for this, it does feel a little boring.  The "blogosphere" is not simply another vehicle for communications departments to get their message out, and it takes more than stale talking points to motivate people.  That advice applies to virtually every Democratic candidate and elected official in Michigan that has attempted blogger outreach, not just Senator Schauer. http://www.nirmalm.com/senator_schauer_youtube_message_343#comments Michigan State Senate Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:47:22 -0500 Nirmal 343 at http://www.nirmalm.com $200 Million in Cuts Not Enough for Republicans http://www.nirmalm.com/200_million_cuts_not_enough_republicans_306 According to the subscription-only MIRS, Senate Republicans are planning to reject the Governor's executive order that would have reduced our spending by $200 million.  Despite the devastating cuts that would have been inflicted on some programs, it apparently wasn't enough for the Senate Republicans. I hope that they have the courage to put their own proposal on the table.  These people have consistently refused the responsibility of identifying which programs they think should be cut. UPDATE:  wizardkitten <a href="http://wizardkitten.blogspot.com/2007/02/mi-senate-republicans-consider.html">has more</a>.  Unsurprisingly, the Republicans haven't offered any suggestions about what they would cut, although "school aid reductions are on the table."  Real classy, guys. UPDATE 2:  JWinston70 started a <a href="http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8152">thread about this</a> over at Michlib. http://www.nirmalm.com/200_million_cuts_not_enough_republicans_306#comments Jennifer Granholm Michigan State Senate Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:33:43 -0500 Nirmal 306 at http://www.nirmalm.com Video Game Legislation in Michigan http://www.nirmalm.com/video_game_legislation_michigan_259 Surprisingly, Michigan <A HREF="http://www.2old2play.com/News/Video_Game_Legislation_2007">isn't on the list</A> of states with pending video game legislation. Let's keep it that way. If anything, I think that legislation modeled after <A HREF="http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2007/IN/IN0238.1.html">Indiana's proposed system</A> would be the most effective. Their system would match age requirements to buy games with the ESRB's rating system. Although the ESRB's system isn't perfect, it is a good indicator of the general "maturity level" of a game. http://www.nirmalm.com/video_game_legislation_michigan_259#comments Michigan State House Michigan State Senate Fri, 02 Feb 2007 05:57:40 -0500 Nirmal 259 at http://www.nirmalm.com Heads Up: www.mitaxtruth.com http://www.nirmalm.com/heads_www_mitaxtruth_com_252 Mad props to the <A HREF="http://www.ibzp.net/pohlitics/files/020107-links-outside-its-america.html">always-excellent Zack</A> for pointing both of these out. <A HREF="http://www.mitaxtruth.com/index.php">Michigan Tax Truth</A> is a website that aims to emphasize the value that state-funded services contribute to Michigan. In a related editorial, Craig Ruff argues that raising taxes in a <A HREF="http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702010312">fair and responsible manner</A> can help us lower our unemployment rate. He points to Virginia as an example. Mark Warner accomplished some incredible things during his term as Virginia's Governor, and I've long felt that his approach toward governance is an ideal model to follow. Remember, Warner raised taxes in a Republican-leaning state and still walked out with an <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101085.html">80% approval rating</A> and one of the most <A HREF="http://results.gpponline.org/StateOverview.aspx?id=138">well-managed states</A> in the nation. It can be done. http://www.nirmalm.com/heads_www_mitaxtruth_com_252#comments heads up Jennifer Granholm Michigan State House Michigan State Senate Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:47:04 -0500 Nirmal 252 at http://www.nirmalm.com The Kalamazoo Promise... in North Dakota? http://www.nirmalm.com/kalamazoo_promise_north_dakota_245 The North Dakota State Senate today passed a bill out of committee that is <a href="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/rss.cfm?id=154725&forumcomm_check_return&freebie_check&CFID=17779959&CFTOKEN=48541096&jsessionid=88302dd971fe284d4d43">modeled after the Kalamazoo Promise</a>. <blockquote>Senate Bill 2347 would require the state to pay the bulk – and eventually all – of North Dakota students’ tuition bills, if students meet certain criteria. Requirements include being a state resident since kindergarten and completing four units of math and science in high school. Students also must earn at least a 23 on their ACT cumulative composite score or math score. </blockquote> I like this idea.  These days, higher education the key to social mobility and the American Dream.  By giving kids a path to improve themselves, we help to build a better society for everyone.  Although the ACT has its flaws, I think that it is a far better benchmark of academic potential than the MEAP. Given our state's current economic woes, it is vital that we develop a talented workforce and keep our kids in state.  For us, increasing access to higher education is even more important than it is for North Dakotans. http://www.nirmalm.com/kalamazoo_promise_north_dakota_245#comments higher education Kalamazoo Promise Michigan State House Michigan State Senate Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:32:14 -0500 Nirmal 245 at http://www.nirmalm.com Who Will Pay? http://www.nirmalm.com/who_will_pay_234 The Lansing State Journal reports that the Senate Republicans went ahead and <a href="http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWS04/701260328">proposed a $290 million cut</a> from the revenue that used to come from the Single Business Tax. <blockquote>Senate Republicans on Thursday unveiled an outline of a replacement proposal for Michigan's soon-to-be-extinct business tax, with their plan lowering business taxes by at least $290 million overall. </blockquote> As expected, they failed to identify which state programs would be affected by the cuts. <blockquote>The lawmakers didn't immediately specify spending cuts to make up for the lost revenue, drawing criticism from Democrats. </blockquote> Given our current budget problems, it seems a little irresponsible to be proposing even more tax cuts without identifying who or what will be affected by them.  It is always easy to propose tax cuts, but its quite another to take some responsibility and be honest about their consequences. A much more extensive discussion of this is forthcoming. http://www.nirmalm.com/who_will_pay_234#comments Michigan State Senate Fri, 26 Jan 2007 05:41:57 -0500 Nirmal 234 at http://www.nirmalm.com State-Level Escalation Resolution http://www.nirmalm.com/state_level_escalation_resolution_216 Given that the Iraq war has cost Michigan taxpayers <a href="http://nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/maps_files/iraqsept06/MI.pdf">over $10 billion dollars</a>, stopping President's proposed escalation is a priority for Michigan residents.  An escalation of the Iraq war would only serve to endanger our service men and women and increase tensions in the region.  Luckily, we can take action right here to prevent the President from implementing this misguided policy. The <a href="http://www.progressivestates.org/content/524/">Progressive States Network</a> argues that state legislatures can play a key role in influencing the debate on national issues.  I remember many months ago when the Michigan Legislature passed a resolution on rising oil prices, which was a national issue.  Given that there is a precedent for our Legislature to weigh in on national problems (some as irrelevant as the Terri Schiavo case), I believe that a resolution condemning the President's plan to escalate the Iraq mess is appropriate. Please contact your <a href="http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp">State Representative</a> or <a href="http://senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm">State Senator</a> and urge them to sponsor the following resolution on the proposed escalation. <blockquote>WHEREAS, The President has proposed an escalation in the number of US troops deployed in Iraq; and WHEREAS, U.S. involvement in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers and the wounding and disabling of more than 22,000 U.S. military personnel to date; and WHEREAS, This proposed escalation will further extend National Guard tours in Iraq, that the costs to the states of the call-up of National Guard members for deployment in Iraq have been significant, as reckoned in lost lives, combat injuries and psychic trauma, disruption of family life, financial hardship for individuals, families and businesses, interruption of careers and damage to the fabric of civic life in our communities; and WHEREAS, The American troops have valiantly upheld their duty in Iraq under dire circumstances; and WHEREAS, More than $357 billion has been appropriated by Congress to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq to date, money that could fund desperately needed education, health care, housing, nutrition and other social services in our communities in the United States or humanitarian assistance abroad; and WHEREAS, Previous budgets that have prioritized Iraq have led to cuts in critical block grants for states and have increased the federal debt, which compounded by interest payments, will likely lead to even larger cuts in funding for critical needs in the States; and WHEREAS, Polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not support increasing the number of troops in Iraq; and WHEREAS, Most military experts oppose escalation in Iraq and press reports indicate that even the Joint Chiefs of Staff have opposed such a strategy; and WHEREAS, Legal experts on all sides have determined that Congress has not only broad authority, but a long tradition of limiting escalation or forcing redeployment of troops through the Constitutionally-designate power of the purse. BE IT RESOLVED, That the state of ________, on behalf of its citizens, urges that in a period when the Iraq Study Group, leading military and diplomatic officials and allies around the world are calling for a reduction in troops and withdrawal of the US from Iraq, the United States government should not escalate its involvement in Iraq or increase troop levels; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That, at a minimum, the President should obtain explicit approval from Congress if he wants to send more American troops to Iraq. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks Congressional approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a suitable copy of this resolution shall be sent to George W. Bush, President of the United States, to the Congressional delegation of ________state, and to the United States Congress. </blockquote> http://www.nirmalm.com/state_level_escalation_resolution_216#comments Iraq Michigan State House Michigan State Senate Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:16:16 -0500 Nirmal 216 at http://www.nirmalm.com Watch the Debate on HB 6456 (franchising / possibly net neutrality) http://www.nirmalm.com/watch_the_debate_on_hb_6456_franchising_possibly_net_neutrality_161 <A HREF="mms://streamer.senate.michigan.gov/encodera-av">Watch in a Video Player</A> <A HREF="mms://streamer.senate.michigan.gov/encodera-a">Listen in an Audio Player</A> UPDATE: Matt Ferguson writes: <blockquote>Floor statement from Sen. Patty Birkholz (R-Saugatuck). Taped and will transcribe later. Says Google wanted a net neutrality clause, but ultimately decided they didn't want to derail the whole bill. Both Birkholz and Sen. Gilda Jacobs (D) pulled their amendments dealing with net neutrality. The issue never even came up for a vote. Birkholz says the Governor has promised to take up net neutrality on its own in the next session.</blockquote> The bill passed 26-12 with no net neutrality provision. I'm inclined to believe that the Governor is going to follow through with this. Then again, given the posturing of the various sides at the national level, people who are pessimistic about it are more than justified in not counting on net neutrality legislation next session. SECOND UPDATE: Matt at Michlib <A HREF="http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7696">transcribed Rep. Birkholz's floor statement</A>: <blockquote>Thank you, Mr. President. As we have had some very deliberative debates today on this huge issue before us, I wanted to remind my members about the net neutrality issue - and how important it is to consumers across the state, especially those in the more rural and suburban areas. Yes, this needs to be addressed by the federal government. Yes, the federal government is working on it, but, as we know the federal government lately has been very slow to react to states' needs and we as states have found ourselves leading the federal government - not behind them in the parade. Unfortunately, we do not have the net neutrality amendment on this bill. But it is still very important to look at in the future. It's become known as the Google amendment - and they feel very strongly that Michigan needs to insure consumers' access to all forms of video services - not just those that are offered by cable and phone companies. But they have also indicated their support of increased competition for Michigan consumers and decided that they had no desire to derail the whole process. So, in deference to them and to my constituents who have e-mailed me and snail-mailed me, and phoned me about this very issue, because they feel so strongly, I have decided that I would not put the amendment on as you know. We've also been in contact with the governor's office, and it's my understand that the governor's office has suggested to Google and the other supporters of net neutrality, that they will pick up the bill again next year in standalone legislation. Therefore I did not put the amendment on, but I want members to be aware of the fact that this is a huge issue facing us and we need to continue working on it in the future. Thank you for your support.</blockquote> Fascinating... UPDATE 3: Matt Stoller <A HREF="http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/12/14588/624">updated MyDD readers</A> with the results of the MI Senate vote on HB 6456. See <A HREF="http://www.capitalviewpoint.com/matt_stoller_responds_to_interrupt_160">our discussion</A> on the way the Michigan and national progressive blogs reacted to this issue for more information. Although the vote is now over, we can use this as a learning experience to more effectively confront these kinds of challenges in the future. On my end, I should have spent a lot more time trying to understand net neutrality and cable franchising from a political standpoint before even beginning to speak on this issue. There were political dynamics taking place here that I was completely oblivious to (mainly due to my own recent time constraints), and that had a significant impact on my ability to talk about this authoritatively. Now, we need to determine what we want to do to rectify the situation. Assuming we want to continue to pursue this, it means stuff like getting a commitment from the governor to push for net neutrality at the state level, lobbying John Dingell and John Conyers to bring it to the agenda at the national level, and holding the phone/cable companies accountable (especially on the "jobs" ploy). Although not including net neutrality in this bill sets a bad precedent for other states, I have hope that net neutrality can still be introduced in Michigan. I believe that Granholm is going to come out strong on net neutrality, and by taking back the House we have a much better shot at getting it done. UPDATE 4: Everyone who has been following this issue needs to see matt's post on <A HREF="http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7697">what happened with net neutrality</A> in the Michigan State House today. I agree -- we got a very late start, and just ran out of time before we could even get our bearings. http://www.nirmalm.com/watch_the_debate_on_hb_6456_franchising_possibly_net_neutrality_161#comments Michigan State Senate net neutrality Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:51:30 -0500 Nirmal 161 at http://www.nirmalm.com More on MyDD net neutrality thing http://www.nirmalm.com/more_on_mydd_net_neutrality_thing_159 I have a sinking feeling that there is more to this issue than what I (and we) originally thought. After they posted their initial Granholm "sell out" post, I <A HREF="http://www.capitalviewpoint.com/granholm_isnt_selling_out_on_net_neutrality_158">posted a response</A> in the MyDD thread, and InterrupT followed as well. More discussion on it took place over at <A HREF="http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7687">Michlib</A> in an unrelated thread. We let them know that we weren't totally on board with what they were doing, and the general sentiment was that it wasn't fair of them to attack Granholm or get involved without at least talking to us first. Matt (Stoller) initially replied to the comment in my thread, and then created a <A HREF="http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/11/23538/761">follow-up post</A> based on some of my and InterrupT's comments on the MyDD Granhom "sell-out" post. I also got an e-mail from someone at MoveOn (not a mass e-mail) responding to what I wrote. On one hand, its great to see that they actually listened to us and acknowledged that we weren't comfortable about this, as opposed to dismissing us outright. On the other hand, I'm becoming increasingly more aware that this issue is very complex and tough to figure out based on secondhand info only. They are clearly making an effort to reach out to us now and explain their side of things, which I appreciate. We're talking about this on the MI-bloggers list a bit, and my "gut feeling" is that there is validity to wanting to get this done now. UPDATE: InterrupT has more on Matt's <A HREF="http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/11/23538/761">follow-up</A>: <blockquote>Your argument has a fatal flaw, it assumes that we have to bargain for a neutral network. No amount of bargaining would change the telecoms minds about setting up a two tiered Internet. It would take a lot more than just allowing AT&T to provide terrestrial video services in Michigan to get them to change their minds. AT&T already owns at least half of Dish Network, so they are already providing video services in Michigan (along with Internet and telephone services), they just also want to provide terrestrial video services. If every state that hasn't done so already, denied them franchising rights to their state, they would instead improve their Dish Network service so more people could get a better signal. Also we can't forget that Verizon isn't asking for franchising rights in Michigan yet would still be allowed to operate in Michigan even if the new bill in enacted. So what do Verizon have to bargain for? They can just as easily enact a two tiered network as anyone else. Your argument is also flawed in that you assume that this bill allows for a two tiered Internet, and the point in my post that you link to is that it does not allow such a thing (but it also doesn't stop it). You are right however that this bill could allow for a greater abuse of the telecoms power. It is true that the Telecoms have an insanely powerful lobby, which is why a bill has yet to be passed at the national level, but that doesn't not mean that they will always win. Let's give the new Democrats in congress a chance to address this important issue at the national level. I know that they are aware of the issue, I have written Senator Levin about the issue myself. He sent me a back a nice letter stating that he supports a neutral Internet and would support a bill outlawing a two tiered Internet. Please don't take my comments or anyone else as assault on you or on net neutrality. This bill has been a hotly debated topic in Michigan, gaining a lot of press about it and a lot of talk on the blogs. Plus the titles "Governor Granholm Selling Out the Internet?" and "Why Jennifer Granholm Really Is Helping Destroy the Internet," didn't really help you with Michigan readers. I don't think anybody is saying that this bill is perfect; it still needs provisions insisting the service be rolled out to all parts of the state not just the wealthy, most profitable parts. I think most people want a neutral Internet, but in order to be taken seriously we need to make the best possible argument. </blockquote> http://www.nirmalm.com/more_on_mydd_net_neutrality_thing_159#comments Jennifer Granholm Michigan State House Michigan State Senate net neutrality Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:36:05 -0500 Nirmal 159 at http://www.nirmalm.com Granholm isn't "Selling Out" on Net Neutrality http://www.nirmalm.com/granholm_isnt_selling_out_on_net_neutrality_158 UPDATE: In retrospect, I may have overreacted a bit. The "selling out" title seemed kind of provocative, and I replied without thinking first. Their argument for doing this now is that once the cable/telecom companies get franchising rights, they will no longer have an incentive to "trade" anything for net neutrality, and we'll be locked out of th process. What do you all think? Anyway, here's the original post: This is my response to Matt Stoller's post on MyDD implying that Governor Granholm is somehow <A HREF="http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/11/142151/16">"selling out" the Internet</A>. I look up to Matt (I'd even added him as one of my Facebook friends), so reading that post on MyDD was disappointing. <blockquote>WTF. I read MyDD religiously. I consider it to be one of the best sources of political information for progressive activists, and the philosophy and approach of this site played a very key role in my own development as a blogger. That's why it really bothers me to see this kind of unsubstantiated attack coming from here about Granholm. To refer to the article and imply that she is "Selling Out the Internet" is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. First, we don't know what Granholm is going to do with this bill yet -- to my knowledge, she hasn't given any indication as to whether she is going to sign it into law in its current form or seek changes after Google raised its concerns. When her spokesperson says that they don't want to "disadvantage consumers," they could be referring to some of the other drawbacks to the bill (such as the loss of revenue to local government). By saying that she is "selling out," you're insinuating that she wholeheartedly supports the bill and is opposed to net neutrality, which is clearly not the case. Secondly, you can bet that the net neutrality issue will be pushed next legislative session regardless of what happens with this bill. The Google announcement was one of the major turning points of the campaign (I was there), and she is likely well aware of the critical role that Google played in her re-election. Right now (in the lame duck session), we have Republican majorities in both the MI House and MI Senate that want to concede as little territory to her as possible. Ken Sikkema (the current Senate Majority Leader) is on the record opposing net neutrality, and I'm almost positive that Craig DeRoche (current speaker) is opposed to it as well. Now that we have taken back the House and made substantial gains in the State Senate, its going to be a lot easier to deal with issues like net neutrality next term. Sikkema is term-limited (I don't know Bishop's position on the issue) and the new House Speaker has a good relationship with the Governor, so we have a much better chance of getting this through. Offhand, the Chair of the Michigan Republican Party is on the record as supportive of net neutrality. For the record, I support net neutrality and would like to see it adopted here in MI as soon as possible. If we were able to tie it to this bill, I'd be thrilled. Given the current political environment (everything is about jobs), it is simply not realistic to block this bill because net neutrality has suddenly become an issue. The bill does have several other drawbacks unrelated to net neutrality that need to be addressed, but that's another debate entirely. You do not have the unanimous support of the Michigan netroots on this. There are a lot of progressive bloggers here in Michigan who support net neutrality but don't think that this bill is the place or way to do it. Matt of Michigan Liberal is probably the most widely read progressive blogger that talks state politics -- he thinks that net neutrality should be a <A HREF="http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7653">should be dealt with separately</A> from this bill. Also worth reading is <A HREF="http://somewhatcommon.blogspot.com/2006/11/hb-6456.html">InterrupT's thoughts on HB 6456</A> from the day the article you refer to was released. Its also worth noting that while a lot of people perceive Granholm to be a "DLC" or "establishment" type, she understands the potential of the netroots and is more supportive of us than any of the rest of the party establishment here in Michigan. She reads us every day, reaches out to us personally, and supports our work while understanding that we aren't under her control and are going to be critical of her from time to time. When the time comes, I look forward to fighting for net neutrality in Michigan. I just don't think that this is the way to do it.</blockquote> http://www.nirmalm.com/granholm_isnt_selling_out_on_net_neutrality_158#comments Jennifer Granholm Michigan State House Michigan State Senate net neutrality Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:19:27 -0500 Nirmal 158 at http://www.nirmalm.com Michigan House and Senate Recount Updates http://www.nirmalm.com/michigan_house_and_senate_recount_updates_154 According to the most recent Gongwer, Julie Rogers picked up 11 votes in the recount of her race against Jack Hoogendyk. This still puts her at a loss of over 400 votes. I'd be interested to find out what voting problems occurred on election day. The 32nd State Senate District (Roger Kahn vs. Carl Williams) and 9th State House District recounts will be held this Monday. http://www.nirmalm.com/michigan_house_and_senate_recount_updates_154#comments Carl Williams Jack Hoogendyk Julie Rogers Michigan State House Michigan State Senate Roger Kahn Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:38:07 -0500 Nirmal 154 at http://www.nirmalm.com More on HB6456 (Google and net neutrality) http://www.nirmalm.com/more_on_hb6456_google_and_net_neutrality_119 According to Gongwer, <A HREF="http://www.capitalviewpoint.com/node/115">HB 6456</A> is going to the Senate Technology and Energy Committee to be discussed on Wednesday. If you're in Lansing and interested in net neutrality, I'm sure it will be an interesting meeting to check out. Committee meetings are open to the public -- you just have to sign in as a visitor near the front of the House Office Building. Based on what I've read, <A HREF="http://www.capitalviewpoint.com/node/115">HB 6456</A> doesn't directly deal with Internet services. My understanding is that Google would like to add net neutrality to the bill because its going to be passed soon and because it deals with some aspects of how the Internet is delivered. Gongwer also has some updates on the posturing around the bill. Its subscription only, so I won't copy the whole thing: <blockquote>Meanwhile, Google ran a full-page advertisement in some newspapers saying the bill could allow "big phone and cable TV monopolies" to block such Internet services such as YouTube (which Google recently announced it was buying). And the Michigan Chamber of Commerce issued a statement urging the Senate to pass the bill as it came from the House. (snip) The measure has been flagged by Mr. Sikkema as one he wants to see completed during the lame duck session. Governor Jennifer Granholm has indicated she has objections to some elements of the bill as it came from the House. But local governments intend to push amendments that were rejected in the House that will give them greater protection over the abrogation of cable contracts and to ensure they do not totally lose revenues cable TV licenses now generate. And Google got into the fray last week when it announced its concern over the bill's potential effect on net neutrality. The advertisement it ran on Monday urged readers to contact the Senate to urge support for "an open Internet." (snip) On Tuesday, an organization called SavetheInternet.com said it plans to filed petitions signed by 18,000 residents challenging the bill as it came from the House. But the Michigan Chamber, in a memo sent Senate members, said that wholesale changes should not be made to the bill. "A small number of genuine technical amendments" could be made, but the bill as it passed the House largely meets the goals the chamber set for the legislation. The issue of net neutrality should not be decided by the state but by the federal government, the chamber said in its memo. Any attempt to deal with the issue at the state level should not be attempted until separate legislation can be introduced next year, it said.</blockquote> http://www.nirmalm.com/more_on_hb6456_google_and_net_neutrality_119#comments Michigan State House Michigan State Senate net neutrality Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:21:52 -0500 Nirmal 119 at http://www.nirmalm.com Final Thoughts http://www.nirmalm.com/final_thoughts_103 I <A HREF="http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7455">originally posted</A> this over at Michlib: Well, this is it. We have all put in a lot of hard work into this upcoming election over the past many months.  With things trending in our favor, that work appears to be paying off.  People understand that we cannot move our state forward under the current status quo, and that electing Democrats will help to bring the change that we need.  They understand that the future of our state is in our hands, and not those of fancy lobbyists and narrow-minded special interests.  Most importantly, they understand that we have some real choices in these races, and that our choices tomorrow will determine the direction of our state for many years to come. Despite all of this, we must keep working to close the deal.  We cannot make the mistake of being complacent these next 24 hours.  It would be awful if we nearly had these races, but lost them in the last moments because we didn't work hard enough.  It is our duty to not only vote, but to turn out our supporters so that we can ensure that our values are represented in our government.  When it comes to Prop. 2, Bouchard, our state legislature, and the Amway Guy, nothing less than our very way of life is at stake.  Michigan is worth fighting for, so let's <A HREF="http://www.michigandems.com/fieldoffices.html">get out there</A> and fight! That brings us to election day.  Hopefully, the results will be good to us.  Maybe they won't be.  Regardless of what happens tomorrow, our work continues on November 8th.  We are a long-term movement and must stay organized if we want to outlast this election cycle and become a coherent political force in Michigan politics.  While tomorrow's election is very significant in itself, what happens now will also set the stage for many battles to come.  We are going to remain a part of Michigan's political process no matter what the outcome, and I look forward to our discussion about where we go from here after the election. Finally, thank you all for making the past months such a meaningful experience.  This is hands down the best community on the 'net, and I know that many of us would have stopped blogging a long time ago if it weren't for the advice and encouragement of this incredible community.  I don't want to start listing names because I would inevitably leave someone out by accident, but there are a couple people that I would like to mention:  Matt and Laura. Matt has sacrificed a lot to keep this website going, and it shows -- Michlib is the best website for Michigan politics, period.  I know I don't just speak for myself when I say that his work inspires us to give blogging our 100%.  Although Laura is not as visible on the front page, she does an incredible amount of "behind-the-scenes" work to develop the Michigan "netroots" that deserves to be acknowledged.  If it weren't for her advice, e-mail updates, and logistical tips, I might not have ever made it off the ground. Anyway, that's enough babbling from me -- good luck with your races, and I'm sure we'll be talking and analyzing the results soon! http://www.nirmalm.com/final_thoughts_103#comments Michigan Attorney General Election Michigan Governor Election Michigan Senator Election Michigan State House Michigan State Senate Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:56:17 -0500 Nirmal 103 at http://www.nirmalm.com
Warning: The table 'watchdog' is full query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', 'Table &#039;sessions&#039; is marked as crashed and should be repaired\nquery: SELECT sid FROM sessions WHERE sid = &#039;7b1ac744ae7db8fe94be91ef97211097&#039; in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167.', 2, '', 'http://www.nirmalm.com/taxonomy/term/22/0/feed', '', '38.107.191.106', 1284051706) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167

Warning: The table 'watchdog' is full query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', 'Table &#039;sessions&#039; is marked as crashed and should be repaired\nquery: INSERT INTO sessions (sid, uid, cache, hostname, session, timestamp) VALUES (&#039;7b1ac744ae7db8fe94be91ef97211097&#039;, 0, 0, &#039;38.107.191.106&#039;, &#039;messages|a:1:{s:5:\\&quot;error\\&quot;;a:5:{i:0;s:209:\\&quot;warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc:167) in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/common.inc on line 141.\\&quot;;i:1;s:247:\\&quot;user warning: File &amp;#039;./nirmalkm_drupal/cache_menu.MYD&amp;#039; not found (Errcode: 2)\\nquery: SELECT data, created, headers, expire FROM cache_menu WHERE cid = &amp; in /home/nirmalkm/public_html/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 167