Monday, May 23, 2005

A Fillibuster-Breaking Deal?

According to Fox News, there is a deal, to eliminate the possibility of triggering the Constitutional Option in the debate over Appellate Court nominees. The 6 Republicans who compromised have agreed to throw Henry Saad and Bill Myers overboard in exchange for a promise that the Democrats will not fillibuster other Appellate or Supreme Court nominees, except under "extreme circumstances." Republicans will procede with the Constitutional Option if Democrats go back on their word.

OK. 3 points:

  1. Saad and Myers deserve votes. Period.
  2. If Republican appointees are not Marxists, they will be considered extreme and will be fillibustered.
  3. Republicans will not procede with the Constitutional Option  if  when the Democrats go back on their word. The fact that this quite half-baked opposition plan has been handled with kid gloves for the past 4 years makes it clear that Republicans have neither the will nor the aptitude to take initiative and stand up for anything.
Anyone who will let a weaker party twist his or her will is not in control. The Republicans have demonstrated that they do not know what it means to be in control, even with a sizeable majority. They do not want to govern and the Democrats, whether they win elections or not, will win the day on the most important reforms of our Central government.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Catching up is Hard to Do

OK, so it's Neil Sadaka, not Paul Anka. But the two are virtually identical.

School is over for another year and my textbooks are safely on the shelf, where they will stay for the next 40 years. Someday I'll get tired of dusting them and will sell them at a garage sale, if such things still exist in 2045. Anyway, this all means that I can start blogging again, which is much more enjoyable than burying my face in this worthless object that purports to be an Algebra/Trig/Precalc textbook. I'm not going to sell this one at a garage sale. I'm going to burn it.

I missed out on quite a lot over the past 2 months. Terri Schiavo died, the Pope died, the Right split up, and the Left remained as fanatical as ever. I'm working on a string of posts to link these issues because they all are directly related. Until then, however, we have the juicy story about the absence of anything approaching journalism over at Newsweak.

Many theories have been proposed for the origin of Left-leaning bias in the media. Here's mine. In any given situation, there are two sides: the powerful and the powerless. The standard operating procedure of major media is to give much more credence to the powerless than to the powerful. When a journalist tells you he is impartial, he means that he uses his internal "balance meter" to correct the natural imbalance of the powerful and the powerless.

Modern journalism is not the pursuit of truth. It is the pursuit of a satisfying result—which is to say, a result that satisfies the journalist's internal moral compass. It's the same agitated fury at a perceived lack of equality that drives Obsessive-Compulsives to arrange their pencils by length. But journalists are paid for it.