Category: Politics

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Can you even imagine revolting against your government today? Or are we in an era of Prudence, with evils sufferable?

I find it very difficult to agree with the majority of what any one political pundit has to say. It’s a rare case where I read an article that I don’t have at least some problem with the language and logic used in the article. Normally this is just in the back of my head and doesn’t really get to me. But the current “debate” over changing the filibuster rules has sent me over the edge.
Take, for example, this from Ronald D. Rotunda, a law professor at George Mason,

The filibuster has a long history, but its pedigree should not make us proud. It prevented civil rights legislation from being adopted for nearly a century. Now a minority of senators is using it to prevent the Senate from voting on judicial nominees even though a majority of the senators from both parties would vote to confirm if they only could vote.

Aaaaaah! The logic in this paragraph is (1) filibuster blocked civil rights legislation, (2) that was bad, (3) the filibuster is being used to block judicial nominations, (4) ergo blocking those judges (“even though”) must be bad. What kind of logic is that?
In the last paragraph of the article we further find

Now, a minority of senators once again claims that the Senate cannot change it rules to prevent this filibuster unless a super-majority agree. That is wrong. To paraphrase Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, to vote without debate is unwise, but to debate without even being able to vote is ridiculous.

Ack. Not being able to vote is ridiculous, but the filibuster IS a vote. It’s a vote by 41 Senators not to proceed. Just because a vote is not a majority vote does not invalidate that it is a vote. By a similar logic, votes to amend the constitution do not constitute a proper vote because they require supermajorities.
OK, sorry, I don’t usually make to many political posts, but this lack of logic in the debate is making me bonkers.

Since 1980, 22 juveniles have been executed in the U.S. By state, Texas 13, Oklahoma 2, Virginia 3, Missouri 1, Louisiana 1, Georgia 1, South Carolina 1. 72 remain on death row: Texas 29, Alabama 14, Mississippi 5, North Carolina 4, Arizona 4, Louisiana 4, Florida 3, South Carolina 3, Georgia 2, Pennsylvania 2, Virginia 1, Nevada 1. (From today’s New York Times.) One blue state (PA). Inflamatory mode on: I guess it would be unfair to all of the other red states to throw them in with this bunch, but in my more hateful hours I really want to call red state voters kid killers.

I am a sucker for all creative protest tactics.

From a New York Times article:

After a bitter and protracted recount fight in the Washington state governor’s race, elections officials announced today that the Democratic candidate, Christine O. Gregoire, was now leading her Republican opponent by a miniscule margin of only 10 votes, a stunning reversal of the Nov. 2 election results.

Kiev, Ukraine, Nov. 29 (UPI) — The sign-language interpreter on a Ukrainian TV station Thursday staged a silent protest against the nation’s election by signing, “They are lying.”
During a news report on state-owned UT-1 that called Viktor Vanukovych the winner of the presidential election, Natalya Dmitruk told viewers in sign language, “I am addressing all the deaf citizens of Ukraine. Our president is (Viktor) Yushchenko. Don’t believe what they say. They are lying.”
Dmitruk then went back to signing the news report but digressed one more time at the end: “My soul is heavy that I had to repeat these lies. I will not do it again. I don’t know if we’ll see each other again.”