I'm going to pause this blog, Partisan Newsjunkie, for the summer.
I love this blog, and the opportunity to vent my unsolicited, partisan, semi-hysterical opinions on current events.
However, it doesn't help my customers, or help my company, or advance my career, or make me money.
So, I'm going to focus my activities on tasks that do those four things.
I'll probably be back.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sellouts
The "compromise" agreement reached by the "moderate" Senators in the U.S. Senate today to end the fillibuster will be analyzed endlessly over the next few days in the press and in the blogs.
Did the compromisers save the Senate? Do they represent the reasonable middle in thwarting the plans of their leadership to have a showdown on principle? Is there a "middle" in politics?
My take is simple: the gang of 14 that crafted the compromise are sellouts. A 14% minority who have hijacked the important debate on principle with a plan that merely punts the fight down the road. It's cowardly, in the best tradition of the cowardly Senate.
Is there a middle. No, not a principled middle. An apathetic middle, maybe. A middle that wants to run and hide from a principled fight maybe. But not a principled middle. There are two sides to this debate, not three. The only middle is to sellout and take the ball and go home.
The only bright side in the compromise deal is that 3 of the 7 judges that are at the center of the controversy will get the up or down vote they deserve in the Senate. They are well qualified and will be confirmed.
The downside is that the Democrats escaped having to stand up and take the stage and put the lie that they are unqualified on display by fillibustering in public. They got away with the lie.
My disgust will, of course, center on the RINO's (Republicans in name only) amonst the sellouts who sold their President's well qualified nominees - the 4 who may not get an up or down vote - down the river to have peace with their Democrat colleagues who have abused the process. Disgusting.
Did the compromisers save the Senate? Do they represent the reasonable middle in thwarting the plans of their leadership to have a showdown on principle? Is there a "middle" in politics?
My take is simple: the gang of 14 that crafted the compromise are sellouts. A 14% minority who have hijacked the important debate on principle with a plan that merely punts the fight down the road. It's cowardly, in the best tradition of the cowardly Senate.
Is there a middle. No, not a principled middle. An apathetic middle, maybe. A middle that wants to run and hide from a principled fight maybe. But not a principled middle. There are two sides to this debate, not three. The only middle is to sellout and take the ball and go home.
The only bright side in the compromise deal is that 3 of the 7 judges that are at the center of the controversy will get the up or down vote they deserve in the Senate. They are well qualified and will be confirmed.
The downside is that the Democrats escaped having to stand up and take the stage and put the lie that they are unqualified on display by fillibustering in public. They got away with the lie.
My disgust will, of course, center on the RINO's (Republicans in name only) amonst the sellouts who sold their President's well qualified nominees - the 4 who may not get an up or down vote - down the river to have peace with their Democrat colleagues who have abused the process. Disgusting.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Closure
I always know when news stories start. They occupy significant space on the front page.
All different types of stories. For example:
Politics: Democrats made significant traction before and during the 2004 election by accusing Vice President Dick Cheney of holding Energy Committee hearings in secret because he invited in his oil industry buddies to let them write the energy laws. Democrats sued to get access to the meeting notes. Front page news.
War: Liberals in general, and anti-war liberals in particular, made a lot of the story of the U.S. Marine who entered a room and shot and killed an Iraqi laying on the floor. NBC camermen filmed the exchange. Despite movements that could be interpreted as life threatening, liberals chose the interpretation that the shooting was unjustified and demanded a court martial. Front page news.
Personal Interest: an FBI task force asked the public for help in locating an abused girl who showed up on the internet in more than 200 anonymous child porn photos. Tipsters identified one room she was in as a popular resort hotel. But where was she now? Front page news.
I don't always know when these stories reach closure. Often, as with these three stories above, they are only covered in small inocuous articles deep inside the paper. Had I not been reading closely I might not have known how these stories concluded.
Dick Cheney was exonerated 8 - 0 by an appeals court.
The U.S. Marine was acquitted, with the shooting judged to be justified.
And the little internet girl was found safe. Thank God.
All different types of stories. For example:
Politics: Democrats made significant traction before and during the 2004 election by accusing Vice President Dick Cheney of holding Energy Committee hearings in secret because he invited in his oil industry buddies to let them write the energy laws. Democrats sued to get access to the meeting notes. Front page news.
War: Liberals in general, and anti-war liberals in particular, made a lot of the story of the U.S. Marine who entered a room and shot and killed an Iraqi laying on the floor. NBC camermen filmed the exchange. Despite movements that could be interpreted as life threatening, liberals chose the interpretation that the shooting was unjustified and demanded a court martial. Front page news.
Personal Interest: an FBI task force asked the public for help in locating an abused girl who showed up on the internet in more than 200 anonymous child porn photos. Tipsters identified one room she was in as a popular resort hotel. But where was she now? Front page news.
I don't always know when these stories reach closure. Often, as with these three stories above, they are only covered in small inocuous articles deep inside the paper. Had I not been reading closely I might not have known how these stories concluded.
Dick Cheney was exonerated 8 - 0 by an appeals court.
The U.S. Marine was acquitted, with the shooting judged to be justified.
And the little internet girl was found safe. Thank God.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Why Do I Know This Stuff?
Dinner conversation tonight, in a group of all male colleagues at the conclusion of a sporting event, started naturally on the topic of sports. The status of the NBA playoffs. Who was overrated in the NFL. That sort of trivia.
I can hang in during a sports discussion, but just barely. It's not my thing.
Politics is my thing. The Senate filibuster fight is my playoffs. Conspiracy theories are my season. Elections are my Olympics. I can quote stats and dates, but on scandals in Washington D.C. and not from the ballpark. I can recite the history and timelines of events. I can connect the dots. I can make esoteric arguments about complicated policy issues. I can define the words liberal and conservative and libertarian without using a dictionary.
In the course of our dinner conversation the topic shifted from sports to politics, and I had the floor. I held court, with some degree of passion, on topics that I've written about here, such as the terrorist / Iraqi connections to the Oklahoma City Bombing. As we talked, it became clear to me that I probably study political topics more than most people do.
It reminded me of stumbling on a sports show on a sports network this week, whereby contestants match wits with a guy named "Schwab" on sports trivia questions like "name 4 Baltimore Orioles players who were named league MVP's" or whatever. I mentioned to my dinner companions that my thought, as I watched this trivia show in sports-speak that was almost a foreign language to me, was:
"Why would someone know these things?"
An ironic question, of course, as the laughter of my dinner companions confirmed.
So, thanks go out to my fellow political bloggers - who speak my language and share my passion for Cable News and CSPAN. And, of course, the blogosphere.
Now, if I can only figure out how to use this quirky hobby to become obscenely rich!
I can hang in during a sports discussion, but just barely. It's not my thing.
Politics is my thing. The Senate filibuster fight is my playoffs. Conspiracy theories are my season. Elections are my Olympics. I can quote stats and dates, but on scandals in Washington D.C. and not from the ballpark. I can recite the history and timelines of events. I can connect the dots. I can make esoteric arguments about complicated policy issues. I can define the words liberal and conservative and libertarian without using a dictionary.
In the course of our dinner conversation the topic shifted from sports to politics, and I had the floor. I held court, with some degree of passion, on topics that I've written about here, such as the terrorist / Iraqi connections to the Oklahoma City Bombing. As we talked, it became clear to me that I probably study political topics more than most people do.
It reminded me of stumbling on a sports show on a sports network this week, whereby contestants match wits with a guy named "Schwab" on sports trivia questions like "name 4 Baltimore Orioles players who were named league MVP's" or whatever. I mentioned to my dinner companions that my thought, as I watched this trivia show in sports-speak that was almost a foreign language to me, was:
"Why would someone know these things?"
An ironic question, of course, as the laughter of my dinner companions confirmed.
So, thanks go out to my fellow political bloggers - who speak my language and share my passion for Cable News and CSPAN. And, of course, the blogosphere.
Now, if I can only figure out how to use this quirky hobby to become obscenely rich!
Monday, May 09, 2005
"Not in My Name" Party
The Democrat Party of late is reminding me of their vocal, fringe, anti-war protest wing who went under the banner of "Not in My Name" before and during the Iraq War. The Demcrats seem to have adopted a NIMN strategy for their participation in government. Obstructionism is the whole of their agenda.
The key focus of their obstinancy, as I've written before, is the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominations in the Senate - where 10 of Bush's most critical judge choices are bottled up in committee. Their rationale there was explained this past Saturday in Sen. Schumer's response to the President's weekly radio address. Schumer stated that the Republicans were trying to overturn the Constitution's system of checks and balances (by defeating the filibuster option) and must be stopped.
This is a lie and it must be labeled as a lie.
Yes, the Constitution provides for a check on the President's ability to appoint judges by requiring that the Senate consent. Clearly, the Constitutional threshold is consent by a majority. 51%.
However, by invoking a filibuster, the Democrats are trying to impose a super-majority standard on consent by requiring the super-majority to break the filibuster. This is not a Constitutional provision, but merely a parlimentary trick using the rules of the Senate. A rule on the order of, say, what time to break for lunch or how to format the page structure of a bill. It's an organizational operating rule, not on the level of Constitutional gravity.
A parade of Senators has appeared on TV news programs to defend, and even exalt, the "time-honored traditions of the Senate" - chiefly the tradition of being able to bring everything to a halt by blabbering endlessly into a microphone. One after another they roll out the quote that the Senate is the "saucer that cools the tea" in cooling down the hot passions of their brethern in the House.
The "saucer that cools the tea"?
Who do they think can relate to this analogy? I guess I'm taking my lunch break wrong at work, because it's been a long time since I was high tea. I don't have any saucers on my styrofoam cups. Apparently the Princes and Princesses of the Senate use a lot of saucers.
Do they really think this brings honor to their profession? Let me translate their long winded defenses of Senate rules for you:
"Hey, look at us. We're your government's speed bumps!"
or
"If you think we're going to take a vote on anything while I can find a microphone to block a majority, then you Sir are sadly mistaken."
Enough already. Senators - have your saucer-cooled tea. And then let the judges have an up-or-down vote. You're embarrassing yourselves and the process.
The key focus of their obstinancy, as I've written before, is the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominations in the Senate - where 10 of Bush's most critical judge choices are bottled up in committee. Their rationale there was explained this past Saturday in Sen. Schumer's response to the President's weekly radio address. Schumer stated that the Republicans were trying to overturn the Constitution's system of checks and balances (by defeating the filibuster option) and must be stopped.
This is a lie and it must be labeled as a lie.
Yes, the Constitution provides for a check on the President's ability to appoint judges by requiring that the Senate consent. Clearly, the Constitutional threshold is consent by a majority. 51%.
However, by invoking a filibuster, the Democrats are trying to impose a super-majority standard on consent by requiring the super-majority to break the filibuster. This is not a Constitutional provision, but merely a parlimentary trick using the rules of the Senate. A rule on the order of, say, what time to break for lunch or how to format the page structure of a bill. It's an organizational operating rule, not on the level of Constitutional gravity.
A parade of Senators has appeared on TV news programs to defend, and even exalt, the "time-honored traditions of the Senate" - chiefly the tradition of being able to bring everything to a halt by blabbering endlessly into a microphone. One after another they roll out the quote that the Senate is the "saucer that cools the tea" in cooling down the hot passions of their brethern in the House.
The "saucer that cools the tea"?
Who do they think can relate to this analogy? I guess I'm taking my lunch break wrong at work, because it's been a long time since I was high tea. I don't have any saucers on my styrofoam cups. Apparently the Princes and Princesses of the Senate use a lot of saucers.
Do they really think this brings honor to their profession? Let me translate their long winded defenses of Senate rules for you:
"Hey, look at us. We're your government's speed bumps!"
or
"If you think we're going to take a vote on anything while I can find a microphone to block a majority, then you Sir are sadly mistaken."
Enough already. Senators - have your saucer-cooled tea. And then let the judges have an up-or-down vote. You're embarrassing yourselves and the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)