Are the Senate rules democratic?

We have been hearing a lot of talk lately about Senate rules.  One that I never heard of before surfaced last week.  In attempting  to block "advise and consent" of president Trump's cabinet, the Democrats walked out of the committee meeting and claimed that the committee could not vote on the cabinet appointee unless there were some Democrats present.  That's a new one on me.  The next day the Republicans dredged up some rule that said they could too vote.  And so a couple of cabinet appointees made it thru the committee votes to stand before the entire Senate, sometime now.
   Then there is an older Senate practice, which allows any single senator to "place a hold"  (a veto) on any judicial appointment.  Somehow, letting a single senator veto any judge strikes me a profoundly undemocratic.
   Then we have the filibuster.  This practice was started in the 1950's by Democrats.  It came from a Senate rule that allowed unlimited debate.  Once a senator has the floor he can keep on talking as long as he can draw breath.  Democrats would filibuster to block civil rights legislation in the bad old days.  For the really big cases they used to bring in cots to give exhausted senators a bit of rest. Filibusters became so notorious that sometime in the early 1960's the Senate created the "cloture rule".  Under cloture rule, a supermajority (60 votes) sufficed to take the floor away from a windbag filibusterer and move on with Senate business.  As time went on, to avoid the tedium of waiting for Senator Windbag to become obnoxious, they dispensed with th need for Senator Windbag to actually take the floor and keep on babbling.  Now any senator can merely declare he wants to filibuster something, and that something is blocked unless and until they dredge up 60 votes to impose "cloture".  The effect is to require a supermajority to pass anything of substance thru the Senate.
   And then the Senate gives the majority leader the right to personally veto anything.  The majority leader sets the Senate agenda.  Any bill he dislikes, just never appears on the agenda.  Poof and it's gonzo.
    I'm thinking it's time for a housecleaning on Senate rules.  

$130 million a year to UC Berkeley? A third of Berkeley's budget?

I heard these numbers on TV yesterday.  US taxpayers give UC Berkeley $130 million a year.  This is one third of Berkeley's yearly budget.
If true, this is appalling.   It makes UC into a US government college, run by the Feds, indoctrinating the students with whatever party line the Feds want.
   Someone will say that the $130 million is support for research.   When they do, I would ask to see the results of all this research.  What new products are on the market incorporating UC Berkeley research results?  What textbooks have UC Berkeley research results printed in them?  In short, what has all that research money produced?  Other than salaries for tenured professors?
   I doubt that Berkeley can match the results of the old Bell Labs, who invented the transistor, discovered the cosmic background radiation, performed the Davidson Germer experiment showing that electrons had a wavelength like photons.  These are just the few things I remember from a long ago physics course.  There are doubtless more successes to Bell Labs credit.  Too bad the anti-trust people killed off Bell Labs in the 1970's.  

Update:   This morning's Wall St Journal says Berkeley receives a lot more money, like $400 million in research grants and $200 million in student loans.  

The UC Berkeley riots.

Some good TV video of "protesters" dressed in black and wearing masks, smashing plate glass shop windows.  This has got to be off-campus, no college campus I know of has shops with plate glass windows. The cops report NO arrests were made.  Translation: The cops were egging them on. 
   Maybe 'cause the cops are afraid of getting in trouble if a "protester" resists arrest? 
   Maybe 'cause the cops are as anti Trump as the students?  Does anyone believe that?? 
   Maybe 'cause their superiors told the cops to cool it?  And who might those superiors be?? 
   Maybe the cops feared the "protesters" would kick the s**t out of them if they interfered?? 
   Maybe something else? 
   Who knows?

President Trump picks a new Supreme

Honestly, I had never heard of this guy Gorsuch before.  All I know about Judge Gorsuch comes from president Trump's fulsome introduction last night on TV and some kind words from Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer later in the evening. 
   Let's hope Judge Gorsuch sticks to his word, given on TV last night, to judge according to the written law, as understood by those who wrote it at the time they wrote it.  The liberal notion of a "living constitution" is just propaganda advocating the courts to make up new law from the bench.  It's a totally undemocratic notion.  In a democracy, new law comes from the elected legislature, not appointed judges.  Over the years, liberals have used the courts to pass laws that never would have passed a legislature.  Some of them were disasters or disgraces.  Dred Scott started the Civil War.  Plessy vs Ferguson was a disgrace for a half century.  Roe vs Wade touched off a culture war that lasts until this very day.  
   Getting Judge Gorsuch approved by the Senate looks to be real circus.  I'm gonna get me some popcorn and watch the clowns.  

Wow! Trump immigration policy makes big waves

As I get the story, Trump announced the ban on immigrants/visitors from seven African and Middle East countries Friday night.  By Saturday, someone[s] had organized sizable demos at the big airports, LAX in particular.  That's quick work.  How did they do that? and who is they?  Did "they" put the word out on social media?  If so, what media?   I'd join up with that media just to keep in touch with what's going on.  Did "they" use a telephone tree to call all "their" members?  Did "they" take out ads in the newspapers?  Is it possible to get a newpaper ad out that quickly? 
   Or did "they" have foreknowledge, from a leak somewhere in the Trump administration, so they could have more time to get the demo's rolling?
    And, are all those demonstrators going out with their signs just because they still hate Trump? Does anyone actually favor immigrants from pest holes like Somalia?
    The noble MSM are missing a lot of angles to this story. 

$2107 each for a handgun?

Seems very pricey.  But that is the price the government is willing to pay for the new Sig Saur handgun that will replace the current unloved M9 Beretta.  The Sig will be made in New Hampshire, a good thing as far as this NH resident is concerned.  It will be chambered for 9mm Luger which is standard world wide, despite a lot of shooters feeling that anything less than .45 ain't enough for serious work. 

Microsoft Update stopped working

Microsoft Update had been working happily on my aging XP desktop for some years.  I have trusty desktop set to notify me of updates rather than just zap them in automatically.  Now and then I run Microsoft update by hand from Internet Exploder.  Today Microsoft Updates started and then choked up with an error message about how it could not access the internet.  Hmm.  And it popped up a network diagnostic button which I pushed figuring it wouldn't do any harm.  Network Diags trundled for a while and then reported that my firewall was blocking ports 80 (http) 443 (https) and 21 (FTP).
  So, hit "Settings" and then Microsoft Firewall.  And punch a button marked port.  And type in the three port numbers (80, 443, and 21).  Firewall complained about port 80 claiming it was already present.  But it accepted the other two ports.  And then Microsoft update started to work. 
  For all this hacking, Microsoft update did not find any serious updates for me.  I browsed the non serious updates and decided than none of them would do my any good. 
   Still wondering what happened.  Did Microsoft tighten up Update so that it needed the HTTPS port? Did some passing virus turn the ports off by way of defending itself?  Should I get a better firewall?