> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > I don't know the background on the reduction from 666 -- sorry, 66
> > -- to 60.
>
> It's described in my original post, and in more detail in Gold and
> Gupta's paper.
I meant the political background, actually, not the bizarre brain-cracking procedural arcana so eruditely detailed by G&G. That is, what political forces gave us a majority determined enough on some course of action to budge the Immovable Object an inch or two?
G&G makes for great reading, though. There are moments when it's like Voltaire parodying Aquinas, or better, Sterne quoting Slawkenbergius:
> May the Senator move to table the point of order, and if that
> tabling motion prevails, would it be a decision by the Senate to
> affirm the propriety of the motion to end debate which has been
> offered by Senator Pearson?
>
> Rockefeller responded that if the full Senate tabled Mansfield’s
> point of order, “the Chair would have to interpret that as an
> expression by the Senate of its judgment that the [Pearson] motion to
> end debate is in all respects a proper motion” and that the Senate
> would then take an immediate vote on Pearson’s motion. Thus,
> Rockefeller ruled that a simple majority could force a vote on
> Pearson’s self-executing motion
There's pages and pages of this stuff. The cumulative comic effect is very strong.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com