Negation Corner

She's Inciting No One Pt. II

2011-01-11T08:07:00.000-08:00

Remember this ad? Dear reader, is there really any question why Krugman omitted mentioning Joe Manchin, West Virginian Democrat?

Unsurprisingly, most Americans believe that the media outlets which have tried to capitalize on the shooting are incorrect. Rightly so, because as I wrote earlier the shooter (Jared Loughner) is entirely too crazy to possess a coherent political view. Extensive online ramblings hold nothing beyond references Mein Kampf, Karl Marx and a hatred for the government's "mind control." Absent are the names "Sarah Palin," "Glenn Beck," "Barack Obama," and even "Tea Party." Ponder it for a moment, my beloved reader, do you know any Tea Party members whose only favorited movie on YouTube is one of a burning American flag?

Even if the man somehow was a product of 'the culture of hate' which Krugman seems uniquely attuned to, why have we decided to take fault only with Sarah Palin? War metaphors abound, and taking issue with her singular map seems pathetically shallow. My reader, you know how I detest pathetically shallow political positions and swimming pools.

CBS News is fairly non-partisan and, reader, I do believe we will see this statistic become ever more in favor of those who see no connection as time wears on.

CBS: Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

I certainly haven't heard anyone decrying the 'culture of hate' in sports, my fair-minded reader. It is because no one can make political points off of it.

She's Inciting No One

2011-01-10T09:29:00.000-08:00

Dear reader,

I am assuming that you have read the blogosphere and OP-ED pieces of the nation's leading newspapers. They are aflame with some extremely distressing claims concerning the motivations of Jared Lee Loughner and his attempted assassination of conservative Democrat Gabrielle Giffords. Counter-claims and character assassinations are rife. America, and it pains me to say this dear reader, is entirely to quick in scoring political points over the tragedy.

Reader, just to make this crystal clear, no one (not even Sarah Palin) is responsible for Loughner's morally bankrupt actions. The only person to blame is him because only he is responsible for his actions. Personal responsibility, my dear reader, is a wonderful thing. Palin, and all the rest of those frenetic conservative pundits, are not legally (according to Brandenburg v. Ohio) and not ethically responsible.

An unfortunate map of America, containing cross-hairs over the districts which contained Democrat Congressional Represenatives who voted for the healthcare plan has surfaced from Palin's campaign site. It's a fallacious comparison, one that I doubt you were taken in by dear reader. Loughner was not some far-right wingnut, he was much too crazy for that.

Daryl Cagle created this unfortunate cartoon, but no one mistook it for inciting violence. Why? Because blaming him wouldn't score political points.

A high school classmate describes Loughner as "left-wing." He is apparently very fond of Karl Marx and enjoys "Mein Kampf." His only "favorited" movie on YouTube is one of a burning American flag, and his own created movie portrays the American flag in equally disrespectful terms. Not exactly your dyed-in-the-wool Tea Party member, dear reader.

I only hope that this all blows over, and we unite as a country to offer up our condolences.

Sincerely,
The Author

Filibuster Reform

2011-01-08T08:11:00.000-08:00

Dear reader,

There are two prominent points to Filibuster Reform that I have been hearing recently. The first, unless I am mistaken, is comprised of two (admittedly, overlapping and thus logically inconsistent) claims concerning the Senate and what it was designed to do. In no particular order: (1) The Senate was designed by the Founding Fathers to act quickly and (2) this is reflected in the Constitution. The second is more straightforward, and is composed of three parts (1) an indictment that filibustering isn't a "time-honored tradition," (2) it wasn't used "at all" before the civil rights era and finally (3) it wasn't used widely until the 1990s.

I am going to address the second one first, my dear reader, because it is much easier to demonstratively disprove.

Filibustering is not a "time-honored" tradition because, or so opponents say, a tradition can not possibly be a casual mistake. A mistake in the editing of the Senate's rulebook in 1805 by Vice President Aaron Burr (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton) that quickly developed into its current horror. Of course, good reader, you can already see that it is a fallacious comparison. Aaron Burr certainly wasn't doing away with the cloture motion because he wanted less debate, was he? It certainly doesn't make sense that a mistake over 200 years ago was never realized until now. No, it seems that if something has been around for over two centuries, there's a statue of limitations to whether it can be called a 'mistake.'

Nevertheless, opponents point out, there's no tradition behind the filibuster. The US Senate is the only democratic institution to use it. It shouldn't surprise you, reader, that that isn't true. The first example of the filibuster goes all the way back to the Roman Republic; more specifically, Cato the Younger [Link]. This tradition has continued through France and Britain (most spectacularly over the Irish Question), until arriving in America in 1841. There, in the first use of the filibuster, the famous Henry Clay and the infamous Calhoun squared off over one of Clay's proposal. In any event, it's clear that there is quite a history behind filibustering. Enough, if you allow your author this conclusion, to be called a tradition.

Moving onto the second part of claim (2), where it is stated that filibustering wasn't used within America until the civil rights era. On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette. Neither of which are part of the civil rights movement or even from that same era. There is also the famous example of Senator Huey Long who filibustered for a then-record 15 hours on On June 12, 1935. I could continue regurgitating dates, dear reader, but no one likes a name dropper.

Finally, the idea that the filibuster was not widely used before the 1990s is absurd; as you well know. I believe this [Link] is evidence enough.

At this point, my fair-minded reader, I hope you can conclude that filibustering in America does have a long "time-honored tradition" and that it existed well before the civil-rights era as well as used extensively before 1990.

Moving onto the skipped claim (1), these points are somewhat more ambiguous. I can't deny that there are some incredibly germane arguments that the Senate isn't supposed to be extremely deliberate. As can be expected, there are some faults with the arguments. They are usually expressed in such a duplicitous way to make anyone disagreeing with the narrative to be arguing a negative. In effect, that the Senate was designed *not* to act quickly and that to act quickly is *not* reflected in the Constitution. However, this link eloquently sums up why the reigning opinion is that the Senate is a slower deliberative as reflected within the Constitution. [Link]

Sincerely,
Author

A First Post

2011-01-07T20:36:00.000-08:00

Hello Reader,

In this blog you will find a comfortingly stable approach to posting. I, the author, will bring in an outside perspective into the confines of this corner and see if the viewpoint can stand a critical reading. A slight spoiler, it will usually be an opinion piece or an opinion masquerading as a bit of 'objective' reporting. Yet that isn't a hard and fast rule, merely a tendency. I will bring, from time to time, bits and pieces that I will merely add to. Other times I will bring to you, my reader, a scholarly article that I found interesting. Enough spice, I suppose, to keep our relationship alive.

Now what's my slant? Reader, I am glad you asked. My slant is simple enough: rationality. Arguments and concerns that are logically consistent (no matter their content) will be given a slide. While opinions, especially if I agree with their conclusions, will be curb-stomped to death if they lack a logical train of thought. To be absolutely fair, I have noticed a certain bias in favor of deficit hawk positions using that criteria and, as can be expected, the emotional appeals of Progressive Economics holds no weight. Social issues are a crapshoot and the smart money says that both Republicans and Democrats have some work to do in that regard. Other than that, my opinions are as complicated as the man who spawned them.

I hope you enjoy this, I certainly will.

Sincerely,
Author