NPR - February 8, 2017 - Republicans Vote To Silence Sen. Elizabeth Warren In Confirmation Debate
On Tuesday night, between February 7 and 8, 2017, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was silenced and prevented from participating further in the confirmation debate for Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as the next United States Attorney General. Her sin was a violation of Rule XIX, in this case "impugn[ing] the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama" according to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
In his comments, McConnell incorrectly cited Warren quoting from a letter by Coretta Scott King (though she did also do that during her remarks) written during Sessions' failed confirmation hearing to become a federal district court judge.
Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) admonished Warren "you stated that a sitting senator is a disgrace to the Department of Justice." In audio from her floor remarks, Warren is clearly heard to reply that the comment seemed to have been made not by King, but by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy — whom she also quoted — "although I would be glad to repeat it in my own words," she added.
Warren later observed "So, quoting Sen. Kennedy calling then-nominee Sessions a disgrace is a violation of Senate rules? It was certainly not in 1986."
That would be correct, Senator Warren. At the time Senator Kennedy made his disparaging remarks about then U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions, Mr. Sessions was not a Senator.
Rule XIX.2.: No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
The fact that McConnell misspoke when he rose to invoke Rule XIX and cited Mrs. Kings letter provided an opening for much of the print, audio, and video media to report inaccurately that Warren was silenced for quoting the words of Coretta Scott King on the floor of the United States Senate. The fact the story is totally false is not relevant to those who wish to seize upon any opportunity to malign the character and intentions of the Republican Party and those who support them. If a lie is told loudly enough and often enough, eventually few if any will question its veracity.
Wednesday, February 08, 2017
Monday, February 06, 2017
Get a Clue, America
Black Lives Matter!
Marriage Equality!
Gender Equality!
Gender Multiplicity!
Hyphenated-American!
LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ Rights!
Marriage Equality!
Gender Equality!
Gender Multiplicity!
Hyphenated-American!
LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ Rights!
Organic bovine-derived fertilizer.
As long as you buy into the splintering and factionalizing of America, you’re doing it wrong. If you are due a right it is because of your humanity, period. Who you are attracted to; what you do with them; what is, is not or you wish were or were not found between your legs; the melanin content of your skin; or where your six generations removed ancestors came from are not relevant.
Until we are all worried about all of us inclusively, and this is exclusively our concern, we all lose.
Thursday, February 02, 2017
Burn the Flag, Go to Jail!
Do you agree, America?
This question predates
Facebook, or even the internet, and yet it still pops up on a far to regular
basis. The underlying presumption would
seem to be that the flag of the United States of America is to be elevated to
an equal status with the deity of one's choosing and treated with similar if not
in fact greater respect. Anyone who
disagrees is at best sub-human, bent on removing God, Motherhood, and fluffy
bunnies from the universe.
The flag of the United
States, or any other country, is just a symbol.
So, to answer the
question: Regrettably, no. The strength of the American flag is its ability to
endure any desecration, degradation, or denunciation and continue to fly
proudly in defiance, affirming all that is right with the idea that is the
United States of America. If it cannot survive unless coddled like a hothouse flower,
then it has no power or meaning at all.
If you choose to answer
the question in the affirmative I respect your feelings while refusing to
support them. Let me ask: Do you share the same respect and deference
for the flags of other nations, and what those flags mean to the people who by
birth or choice live under them? If not,
then I submit you suffer from a bit of a hypocrisy problem.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Establishing a Partial Baseline for 2017 - Disagree With Civility and I Will Always Welcome Your Disagreement
The following is from a conversation I initiated on Facebook January 22:
Original Comment: I remain optimistic that the new President will be able to shake things up in Washington and change "the way it's always been" there for the better. However, the way he comports and expresses himself leads me to the inescapable conclusion that somehow Xxx Xxxxxx has managed to occupy the Oval Office.
Rejoinder: If you think " shake things up" means destroying the progress made toward slowing climate change, removing health care for more than 20 million Americans, preventing women from getting proper advice and help during or before pregnancy, or alienating the U.S. from the international community, then I think you need to study these and other issues more carefully. We are all in this together;it's how we get there that matters.
Response: Respectfully, Sir, I firmly believe that despite the many reservations I have regarding President Trump he is far better for the long-term well being of our country than the alternative choice in November would have been.
I have now awakened on two consecutive mornings following the inauguration to discover the oceans have not risen, the young and elderly have not all died, all women have not become pregnant and subsequently killed by their undesired parasites, we have not gone to war with anyone, and in the bonus round we aren't even speaking Russian. There is far more Chicken Little than substance so far to the shrill hysteria of the Opposition.
Climate change is unquestionably real. It has been taking place for billions of years before humanity stepped on stage and will undoubtedly continue long after we are gone. Climate change is not exclusively human caused, and no scientist can honestly ascribe a value between zero and one hundred percent that defines what our contribution to the current phenomenon might be. No amount of consensus will change that.
Regarding health care, the "removing health care for more than 20 million" scare relies on the assumption that nothing will be put in place to cover any repeals of the ACA which may take place. Heck the argument even conveniently ignores the false assumption that "health insurance" equates to "health care". There are many who are now insured but can not afford to use that insurance because of the mushrooming premiums, deductibles and co-pays that are a hallmark of the misnamed "Affordable" Care Act. Also, prior to implementation of the ACA and continuing through this very day it is against the law for any hospital to turn away an individual presenting themselves for care regardless of their ability to pay. It is an inefficient and needlessly cost inflated means of delivering health care, but the care is in fact available. Even without insurance.
Regarding women getting proper advice and help during or before pregnancy, I submit that such is in fact available without the intervention of the government. If one is unable to afford a condom, or incapable of insisting upon its proper use, then perhaps both individuals involved should not be engaging in sexual intercourse. Treat our citizens like irresponsible children incapable of making even the most basic decisions for themselves and you will indeed have the country of irresponsible children we find ourselves with today. Demand personal accountability from each and every citizen and it will not be necessary to assume that every failure to attain equality of outcome is someone else's fault.
The jury is still out on international relations, and I will wait to see how things develop rather than render a proactive judgment regarding results not yet in evidence. I will say though that if entities such as Iran, ISIS, and North Korea don't like the way we are treating them then my feelings will not be even a tiny bit hurt. And I certainly will not be at all apologetic over restrengthening ties with old and valued allies such as Israel.
I conclude, Sir, the way I began, earnestly and in all seriousness respectfully. I have given far more consideration to the issues you raise and many others than you appear to credit me with. My conclusions are far more considered than "Barry Bad - Donny Good!!" I firmly believe that the path we as a nation have been on for much longer than the past eight years is inadvisable and unsustainable, and that supporting the Democrat vision of the future would have brought about complete disaster sooner rather than later. I am far from totally sanguine about the map for the road ahead or our currently selected pilot. I do believe, though, that we stand a much better chance for a positive and prosperous future on our current path than on the road not taken in November.
Original Comment: I remain optimistic that the new President will be able to shake things up in Washington and change "the way it's always been" there for the better. However, the way he comports and expresses himself leads me to the inescapable conclusion that somehow Xxx Xxxxxx has managed to occupy the Oval Office.
Rejoinder: If you think " shake things up" means destroying the progress made toward slowing climate change, removing health care for more than 20 million Americans, preventing women from getting proper advice and help during or before pregnancy, or alienating the U.S. from the international community, then I think you need to study these and other issues more carefully. We are all in this together;it's how we get there that matters.
Response: Respectfully, Sir, I firmly believe that despite the many reservations I have regarding President Trump he is far better for the long-term well being of our country than the alternative choice in November would have been.
I have now awakened on two consecutive mornings following the inauguration to discover the oceans have not risen, the young and elderly have not all died, all women have not become pregnant and subsequently killed by their undesired parasites, we have not gone to war with anyone, and in the bonus round we aren't even speaking Russian. There is far more Chicken Little than substance so far to the shrill hysteria of the Opposition.
Climate change is unquestionably real. It has been taking place for billions of years before humanity stepped on stage and will undoubtedly continue long after we are gone. Climate change is not exclusively human caused, and no scientist can honestly ascribe a value between zero and one hundred percent that defines what our contribution to the current phenomenon might be. No amount of consensus will change that.
Regarding health care, the "removing health care for more than 20 million" scare relies on the assumption that nothing will be put in place to cover any repeals of the ACA which may take place. Heck the argument even conveniently ignores the false assumption that "health insurance" equates to "health care". There are many who are now insured but can not afford to use that insurance because of the mushrooming premiums, deductibles and co-pays that are a hallmark of the misnamed "Affordable" Care Act. Also, prior to implementation of the ACA and continuing through this very day it is against the law for any hospital to turn away an individual presenting themselves for care regardless of their ability to pay. It is an inefficient and needlessly cost inflated means of delivering health care, but the care is in fact available. Even without insurance.
Regarding women getting proper advice and help during or before pregnancy, I submit that such is in fact available without the intervention of the government. If one is unable to afford a condom, or incapable of insisting upon its proper use, then perhaps both individuals involved should not be engaging in sexual intercourse. Treat our citizens like irresponsible children incapable of making even the most basic decisions for themselves and you will indeed have the country of irresponsible children we find ourselves with today. Demand personal accountability from each and every citizen and it will not be necessary to assume that every failure to attain equality of outcome is someone else's fault.
The jury is still out on international relations, and I will wait to see how things develop rather than render a proactive judgment regarding results not yet in evidence. I will say though that if entities such as Iran, ISIS, and North Korea don't like the way we are treating them then my feelings will not be even a tiny bit hurt. And I certainly will not be at all apologetic over restrengthening ties with old and valued allies such as Israel.
I conclude, Sir, the way I began, earnestly and in all seriousness respectfully. I have given far more consideration to the issues you raise and many others than you appear to credit me with. My conclusions are far more considered than "Barry Bad - Donny Good!!" I firmly believe that the path we as a nation have been on for much longer than the past eight years is inadvisable and unsustainable, and that supporting the Democrat vision of the future would have brought about complete disaster sooner rather than later. I am far from totally sanguine about the map for the road ahead or our currently selected pilot. I do believe, though, that we stand a much better chance for a positive and prosperous future on our current path than on the road not taken in November.
Monday, April 02, 2012
Is This An Unbiased Survey?
I took a survey over the weekend. The further along I got in it, the more disturbed I became by the underlying assumptions that seemed to have been made.
My responses are posted below, but if you are so inclined you may take the survey as well first so your answers are not influenced by what you might read further down:
I would certainly be curious to hear comments from those who take the survey - or simply from those who read my responses and simply feel like beating me up! :-)
“Rich and Poor Survey”
1. A person of middle-class passes by a homeless man. Should the cause of the man losing his money (job-loss due to recession vs. gambling) influence the decision for the middle-class person to spare some change for the man?
Yes
No
Why?
The decision to aid should be based upon need, not the cause of that need. Also, how many people are going to get involved in an extended discussion to determine how the homeless man came to be in his circumstances?
2. The government is considering to pass a law obligating households of middle-class and higher to pay a tax to assist people in the lower class. Do you agree or disagree with passing this law?
Agree
Disagree
Why?
Redistribution of wealth does nothing to ameliorate the plight of the less well off, and punishing success does not encourage others to strive for success in their own right.
3. Would a person of higher-class be more responsible for providing charity for the poor than a person of middle-class?
Yes
No
Why?
Charity is a matter of conscience, not class. Having more perhaps permits one to give more but certainly does not obligate that increased giving.
4. Would a higher-class person with inherited money have more responsibility to give charity to the poor than a higher-class person that has earned their fortune with hard work?
Yes
No
Why?
Of course not. How one's resources are obtained does not dictate how those resources should be deployed. To carry the question to a ridiculous extreme, is the lower-class person who benefited from charity more obligated to share their resources than an equally resourced lower class person who has obtained their money without the generosity of others?
5. Does the rich give or take from society?
Give
Take
Why?
It is trite, but true: wealthy people employ people, poor people do not.
6. What is the purpose of charity?
In my never to be confused with humble opinion, charity should first be a private concern and not a function of any government. Charity should strive to help those who are incapable of helping themselves and stabilize the condition of those who need a hand getting back on heir feet becoming self sufficient once again. In no case should charity ever enable the recipient to feel comfortable or complacent in their poverty.
7. Is universal equality ideal? Why or why not?
Universal equality is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to any society. When all are absolutely equal there is nothing to strive for, no reason to better oneself or one's position. Such a society would inevitably find itself in a downward spiral toward extinction.
8. Should we focus on non-financial aid more than financial aid? Why or why not?
Aid should be given in whatever manner most effectively accomplishes the aims of helping the helpless or aiding those who can become productive once again but need a hand in overcoming their present circumstances.
9. Should the rich give to the poor? Why or why not?
What is the imperative behind the "should" in this question? If the assumption is that simply having resources obligates one to share those resources then the answer is absolutely not. If, however, the questioner is posing the question based upon the assumption that a society comprised of productive achievers functions to the ever increasing benefit of rich and poor alike then by all means the rich should give to the poor. Not due to any moral or societal obligation but because it is in their own self interest to do so, with a by product being that it benefits not only the recipient of the charity given but other members of society as well.
My responses are posted below, but if you are so inclined you may take the survey as well first so your answers are not influenced by what you might read further down:
I would certainly be curious to hear comments from those who take the survey - or simply from those who read my responses and simply feel like beating me up! :-)
“Rich and Poor Survey”
1. A person of middle-class passes by a homeless man. Should the cause of the man losing his money (job-loss due to recession vs. gambling) influence the decision for the middle-class person to spare some change for the man?
Yes
No
Why?
The decision to aid should be based upon need, not the cause of that need. Also, how many people are going to get involved in an extended discussion to determine how the homeless man came to be in his circumstances?
2. The government is considering to pass a law obligating households of middle-class and higher to pay a tax to assist people in the lower class. Do you agree or disagree with passing this law?
Agree
Disagree
Why?
Redistribution of wealth does nothing to ameliorate the plight of the less well off, and punishing success does not encourage others to strive for success in their own right.
3. Would a person of higher-class be more responsible for providing charity for the poor than a person of middle-class?
Yes
No
Why?
Charity is a matter of conscience, not class. Having more perhaps permits one to give more but certainly does not obligate that increased giving.
4. Would a higher-class person with inherited money have more responsibility to give charity to the poor than a higher-class person that has earned their fortune with hard work?
Yes
No
Why?
Of course not. How one's resources are obtained does not dictate how those resources should be deployed. To carry the question to a ridiculous extreme, is the lower-class person who benefited from charity more obligated to share their resources than an equally resourced lower class person who has obtained their money without the generosity of others?
5. Does the rich give or take from society?
Give
Take
Why?
It is trite, but true: wealthy people employ people, poor people do not.
6. What is the purpose of charity?
In my never to be confused with humble opinion, charity should first be a private concern and not a function of any government. Charity should strive to help those who are incapable of helping themselves and stabilize the condition of those who need a hand getting back on heir feet becoming self sufficient once again. In no case should charity ever enable the recipient to feel comfortable or complacent in their poverty.
7. Is universal equality ideal? Why or why not?
Universal equality is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to any society. When all are absolutely equal there is nothing to strive for, no reason to better oneself or one's position. Such a society would inevitably find itself in a downward spiral toward extinction.
8. Should we focus on non-financial aid more than financial aid? Why or why not?
Aid should be given in whatever manner most effectively accomplishes the aims of helping the helpless or aiding those who can become productive once again but need a hand in overcoming their present circumstances.
9. Should the rich give to the poor? Why or why not?
What is the imperative behind the "should" in this question? If the assumption is that simply having resources obligates one to share those resources then the answer is absolutely not. If, however, the questioner is posing the question based upon the assumption that a society comprised of productive achievers functions to the ever increasing benefit of rich and poor alike then by all means the rich should give to the poor. Not due to any moral or societal obligation but because it is in their own self interest to do so, with a by product being that it benefits not only the recipient of the charity given but other members of society as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)