Some consider the Nation’s Capital as “Fantasyland on the Potomac”. Other outsiders are “Fed Up” with the Federal City. It's better to consider D.C. as “the District of Calamity” (sic).
Showing posts with label Ted Cruz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ted Cruz. Show all posts
Sunday, November 8, 2020
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Monday, April 9, 2018
Diamond and Silk on Social Media Censorship
Prominent conservative voices in social media, such as Diamond and Silk and Dan Bongino, have vociferously voiced outrage that Big Internet has banned them as being unsafe for the social media community because of their outspoken ideological opinions. This parallels YouTube demonetizing many of Dennis Prager's popular Prager U videos because the conservative views expressed did not sync with the progressive views of their internet overlords. And Twitter is infamous for shadow banning conservatives, even Senator Ted Cruz, without recourse or equal application against outrageous leftist Twits.
Diamond and Silk, who gained fame through their vigorous defense of then Presidential candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, did not silently take this rough trade from Facebook. On Fox and Friends, Diamond and Silk postulated that Mark Zuckerberg needed to "[S]uck it up, buttercup" and accept diverse viewpoints and freedom of speech on its social network, just as the small Indiana pizzeria would be forced to cater a same-sex wedding despite their religious objections to the ceremony.
Alas, Diamond and Silk have a weak case in a court of law. Without meandering into the details of RFRA and First Amendment religious liberty, same-sex marriage proponents could point to civil rights legislation which the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Harris claim a right to dignity for that class. What protected class can Diamond and Silk rightfully claim against Facebook?
However, in the court of public opinion, Facebook engaging in ideological viewpoint discrimination could be a compelling case for action. Does MySpace mean anything to Mark Zuckerberg? That was a social media precursor to Facebook, but when it stopped being cool, it became ghost of itself and a dark web conduit. Facebook is much bigger and is receiving congressional scrutiny. Between viewpoint discrimination and revelations of data mining, shareholders should be concerned if Facebook were to become a fraction of its former self.
Facebook has ceased to be a mainly youth oriented site. Adults may well chafe at having their lives data sold by the social media company. But for motivated conservatives, this cyber censorship may well have this active demographic find alternatives to speak freely, like on GAB.
Diamond and Silk, who gained fame through their vigorous defense of then Presidential candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, did not silently take this rough trade from Facebook. On Fox and Friends, Diamond and Silk postulated that Mark Zuckerberg needed to "[S]uck it up, buttercup" and accept diverse viewpoints and freedom of speech on its social network, just as the small Indiana pizzeria would be forced to cater a same-sex wedding despite their religious objections to the ceremony.
Alas, Diamond and Silk have a weak case in a court of law. Without meandering into the details of RFRA and First Amendment religious liberty, same-sex marriage proponents could point to civil rights legislation which the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Harris claim a right to dignity for that class. What protected class can Diamond and Silk rightfully claim against Facebook?
However, in the court of public opinion, Facebook engaging in ideological viewpoint discrimination could be a compelling case for action. Does MySpace mean anything to Mark Zuckerberg? That was a social media precursor to Facebook, but when it stopped being cool, it became ghost of itself and a dark web conduit. Facebook is much bigger and is receiving congressional scrutiny. Between viewpoint discrimination and revelations of data mining, shareholders should be concerned if Facebook were to become a fraction of its former self.
Facebook has ceased to be a mainly youth oriented site. Adults may well chafe at having their lives data sold by the social media company. But for motivated conservatives, this cyber censorship may well have this active demographic find alternatives to speak freely, like on GAB.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
On the Meaning of Robin Hood to US
During a debate sponsored by CNN between Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT) and Conservative Senator Ted Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas demolished the Democrat conceit that progressives take from the rich to give to the poor.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Smart SCOTUS Oppo Strategerie (sic)
As sagacious of a strategist Committee for Justice President Curt Levey may be, it seems that Democrats in the District of Calamity have taken a different tact.
Senator Jeff Merkely (D-OR) has declared that there must be payback for the 114th Congress not approving lame duck former President Obama's pick of Merrick Garland. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer )D-NY) has declared that he will not work with President Trump unless he utterly does the Democrats' bidding.
In years past, protestations of non-cooperation might have caused Senate Republicans to buckle and moderate. But thanks to former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Reid Rule, cooperation for cloture on appointments is now moot.
Democrats may bluster that only needing a majority was not intended to be for Supreme Court nominees, but that is after the fact dicta. Per Hugh Hewitt and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Reid Rule is about the Senate only requiring a majority to change the rules mid-session. Besides, Reid himself intimated that he showed his Democrat Senate colleagues how to steamroll the GOP with this rule, even for High Court picks Even liberal Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) admits that the filibuster is no longer an emergency brake on nominations.
Under normal circumstances, a newly elected President has little opposition to his first Supreme Court nominee, especially early in his first term. But these are not ordinary times. Democrats are wont to hyperventilate about anything that the Trump Administration does, and seem happy to escalate any altercation to the extreme. Democrats have sought to slow walk Trump Administration confirmation hearings, going so far as to not show up at Senate Committee Hearing votes.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been chary to confirm that Republicans will invoke what was once called "the nuclear option", but he has been steadfast in assuring the public that Trump Administration will be confirmed. The same is true regarding President Trump's pick for the Supreme Court.
The danger that Democrats have in protesting so vehemently to everything in the early Trump Administration and calling supporters out to the ramparts is three fold.
First, they risk over-exhausting their partisans. You can only cry "the sky is falling" only so often before it loses its desired effect.
Secondly, Democrats are not picking their battles wisely. It is not only the incoherence of opposing everything, but in going to the mat for losing causes. Because of the Reid Rule, President Trump will get his Cabinet appointments and most likely the first Supreme Court pick. By fighting so hard on the nominations, it may serve to demoralize their partisans.
Thirdly, the hyperventilating opposition may play well for the progressive base of the Democrat Party but it may serve to alienate white, working class Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016 on positions and personnel with which they agree.
Historically, Democrats do not turn out in mid-term elections. In the 2018 election cycle, Democrats have 23 seats up in the Senate, including in states which voted for Trump. Such strident opposition, epitomized by an obstructionist approach to Trump's first Supreme Court pick (even before he is announced) may solidify a one time "what have you got to lose" vote to a realigning "my party has left me" metanoia, thereby making Blue Dogs and DC Democrats politically endangered species.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Bjorn Lomborg Checks the Temperature of the Paris Climate Change Accord
In the past few years, left leaning leaders from around the globe have been keen to tackle climate change. Pope Francis wrote a bull Laudato Si urging world leaders to come to terms together in the Paris Climate Change Agreement. They sought to sign the Paris Climate Change Agreement with great fanfare, but on the eve of the Summit, the multiple Paris attacks occurred drawing attention away from the achievement.
Now that it has come time to implement the Paris Climate Change Agreement, skeptical environmentalists question the efficaciousness of the accord. But dissent is not something that progressive politicans or the press can fathom.Senator Ted Cruz stumped Sierra Club President Aaron Mair in testimony to account for Climate Change considering the 17 year lull in warming.
French Mathematicians were deemed to be dolts when then point out the absurd cost of prospective compliance with COP 21 promises. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, accepts the fact the global temperatures are rising but postulates that the Paris Accords are more about Climate Aid than really solving the problem of Climate Change.
Science is supposed to be about facts and informed inquiry. But that is not how Climate Change advocates evangelize as they attack apostates who question if it is settled science. Sean Penn has suggested shaming Climate Change deniers A French weatherman was pulled off the air for not spouting the liberal party line about climate change.
In a quixotic attempt to engage progressives who profess the secular religion of Climate Change, Bjorn Lomborg made a video in conjunction with Prager University to illustrate the absurdity of COP 21 promises and solving the anthropogenic climate change problem
Sadly, those steeped in Climate Change politics are reluctant to engage in cost benefit analysis much less critical appraisals of the proposals, as they implore that "something must be done" and will hear nothing else.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Trump Poised to Name Net Neutrality Critic Ajit Pai as FCC Chair
[N.B. This article was originally published February 10, 2015]
Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission, has become outspoken in his objections to the political imposition of Net Neutrality by what is supposed to be an independent Federal commission.
Commissioner Pai noted that: “It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that
it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet. For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan."
Many progressives have rallied around the concept of Net Neutrality thinking that it is hurting corporations and encouraging competition. What Commissioner Pai points out is that applying Title II regulation to the internet, which was designed for railroads and Ma Bell, will stifle competition and favor behemoth businesses because of the regulatory burdens.
Congressional critics such as Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) have likened Net Neutrality as being Obamacare for the Internet, regulations sold to lower prices and improve delivery but which in reality do the opposite while making Uncle Sam the undisputed middle man.
Another alarming feature of such broad regulation by the FCC is the relative obscurity in which the rules are being cobbled together. President Obama pressured the FCC in November 2014 about Net Neutrality. Chairman Tom Wheeler, who had been a big Obama fundraiser, is complying but promises to make some changes in Title II to make it better. Oh, so a regulatory schemata which was drawn up in 14 can be tweaked to apply to the internet age. Right. FCC Commissioner Mike O'Reilly warned the public about the dangers of forbearance as applied to Title II Common Carriers.
There is the larger issue, however, about whether Congress ceded its legislative mantle to the FCC to strictly regulate the internet. If we hold fast to living in a constitutional democratic Republic, shouldn't our elected representatives, not bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people (or for that matter Men in Black) be crafting such momentous law?
UPDATE 01/23/2017 President Trump is poised to name Ajit Pai as Chairman of the FCC, replacing Democrat activist FCC Chair Tom Wheeler. Pai has been a critic of the Commission's impetus to impose net neutrality and thereby expand the FCC's role into regulating the Internet.
Thursday, January 5, 2017
The Legacy of Dirty Harry and the Reid Rule on Senate Filibusters
A legacy of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was the effective elimination of the confirmation filibuster.
Under the Constitution, it is the Senate's duty to confirm Executive and Judicial Branch appointments. Senate rules allowed for confirmations with mere majorities, but needed to obtain 60 votes to cut off debate (Cloture) and preclude a filibuster. The Cloture vote was intended to prevent endless obstructionism while still giving the minority some say in the proceedings of the Upper Chamber of Congress.
Needing to get enough votes for cloture was an incentive for Republicans to select more moderate appointees which required Senate consent. But such Senate niceties stopped political steamrolling by Majorities who wished to exercise their unadulterated will.
When the Obama Administration sought to pack the Court of Appeals for DC (aka the DC Circuit), which is the court of authority for regulatory bodies, it ran into trouble when its candidates might not have received the requisite support for a Cloture Vote. So then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, exercised "The Nuclear Option". Exercising the Nuclear Option had been hotly debated in the preceding decade, but then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) opted not to circumvent tradition.
Through Parliamentary legerdemain, Reid established a precedent in which he said that all judicial nominees, save Justices of the Supreme Court, would be considered on majority votes and did not have to pass the Cloture Vote threshold.
The Reid Rule was great when one's party is in control of the Senate and the White House. But in 2017, President Donald Trump will occupy the White House and Republicans have a two seat majority in the Senate. Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer thinks that he can stymie the Trump Administration through the advice and consent clause as well as any Supreme Court nominations which do not represent progressive Democrat values. However, Schumer may well rue the Reid rule legacy from Dirty Harry Reid.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Salem Radio host Hugh Hewitt had an informative colloquy on the Reid Rule.
Republicans may not moderate their choices for positions which need to be confirmed by the Senate. Despite Harry Reid's contention that the "Reid Rule" excludes Supreme Court nominees, it is contented that avoiding Cloture for a Supreme Court nomination would simply be a second application of the Reid Rule precedent.
Sunday, January 1, 2017
The Din of Disdain for Obama's Chief "Diplomatch" John Kerry
In the waning days of the Obama Administration, international affairs are sullying the lame duck President's legacy. In a United Nations Security Council vote held before Christmas, the United States failed to block a resolution condemning Israel for settlements in disputed territories.
This was a shift in American policy, which had previously threatened to veto such condemnations of our democratic ally in the Middle East. It is widely speculated that American diplomats orchestrated the UN Security Council Vote vote, which the US subsequently abstained to not have diplomatic fingerprints on the rebuke of the Jewish State.
After Christmas, President Obama's Secretary of State doubled down on critics of America's ally in Israel with a 73 minute repetitive harangue of a speech which chided Israel about settlements 42 times and occupation 14 times, while the haughty foreign minister only mentioned Iran and Hezbollah one time, and Hamas (which is part of the Palestinian governing leadership) four times. Perhaps Kerry thinks that America's foreign policy will now pass "the global test".
Reaction to the Obama Administration's outgoing admonitions of Israel have been swift and bipartisan. The Washington Times characterized incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as tearing into John Kerry's Israeli speech as it emboldened extremists. House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY 16th) vowed to work with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Congress withholding UN funds until the anti- Israel vote is reversed Senator Cruz had some bitter analysis over the Obama Administration's anti-Israel tact.
Even President Elect Donald Trump entered the fray, opining on social media that things would change come January 20th.
Recently, a progressive interlocutor opined that President Obama has been Israel's best friend ever. I thought that was a dubious assertion. But Secretary of State Kerry's penchant for acting like a Diplomatch (sic) really impeaches that opinion.
Even after all of the tumult after the 2016 election, it is surprising that what is bringing Democrats and Republicans together is the foreign policy pyrotechnics of the outgoing Obama Administration.
This was a shift in American policy, which had previously threatened to veto such condemnations of our democratic ally in the Middle East. It is widely speculated that American diplomats orchestrated the UN Security Council Vote vote, which the US subsequently abstained to not have diplomatic fingerprints on the rebuke of the Jewish State.
After Christmas, President Obama's Secretary of State doubled down on critics of America's ally in Israel with a 73 minute repetitive harangue of a speech which chided Israel about settlements 42 times and occupation 14 times, while the haughty foreign minister only mentioned Iran and Hezbollah one time, and Hamas (which is part of the Palestinian governing leadership) four times. Perhaps Kerry thinks that America's foreign policy will now pass "the global test". Reaction to the Obama Administration's outgoing admonitions of Israel have been swift and bipartisan. The Washington Times characterized incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as tearing into John Kerry's Israeli speech as it emboldened extremists. House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY 16th) vowed to work with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Congress withholding UN funds until the anti- Israel vote is reversed Senator Cruz had some bitter analysis over the Obama Administration's anti-Israel tact.
Even President Elect Donald Trump entered the fray, opining on social media that things would change come January 20th.
Recently, a progressive interlocutor opined that President Obama has been Israel's best friend ever. I thought that was a dubious assertion. But Secretary of State Kerry's penchant for acting like a Diplomatch (sic) really impeaches that opinion.
Even after all of the tumult after the 2016 election, it is surprising that what is bringing Democrats and Republicans together is the foreign policy pyrotechnics of the outgoing Obama Administration.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
On the Politics of Punishing Aborting Mothers
While Donald Trump was on a MSNBC Hardball Townhall with Chris Matthews, made some extraordinary ejaculations about abortion. Pro-Lifers have been chary about Trump's recent conversion to being against abortion, especially as the Manhattan mogul had labeled himself as being "very pro-choice" in the past. Moreover, Trump continues to speak highly of Planned Parenthood's contributions to womens' health during Republican debates, even after the Center for Medical Progress' investigative videos implicating Planned Parenthood Clinics trafficking baby body parts for sale and altering abortions to get the most optimal harvest.
Well, Mr. Trump may have overcompensated to ingratiate himself with pro-life Republican voters for the Wisconsin Primary. When Chris Matthews pressed Trump about the consequences of banning abortions, Trump proposed that women having abortions should suffer some sort of legal penalty for incurring an illegal abortion (but men would be alright).
More than just wanting to punish women for having abortions, Trump seemed to acknowledge that women would still seek out illegal abortions in unmonitored clinics.
The public reaction to Trump's "modest proposal" was a swift and stern firestorm. The Hillary 2016 and Sanders campaigns immediately jumped on Trump's bold bluster to condemn this ham handed handling of womens' issues. On social media, a Dominican Friar indignity opined that those who wish to punish women for having abortions have no idea about their psychological or moral pain he hears about in the confessional.
The Trump campaign twice tried to walk their man from off the abortion ledge. At first, Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks tried to pawn decision making of penalties off to the states. But several hours after uttering this incredible idea, Trump took the counsel of his advisers and did an about face, walked back the punishing aborting mothers' idea to a more conventional Republican pro-life position of punishing the doctor and seeing the woman as a victim.
CNN noted that Trump took three abortion positions in one afternoon. Former 2016 Presidential rival and now Trump surrogate Dr. Ben Carson explained away Trump's peculiar position on punishing abortion women. Carson claimed that Trump (like himself) is not a professional politician and that he had been ambushed with the question. Judging from the three positions in a span of hours, Trump either had not thought much about the issue or needed to have some political sense knocked into him for the primary face offs.
This Trump gaffe created an opening for his Republican rival Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to issue a statement on the sanctity of human life and on affirming women.
In addition, Cruz had a previously scheduled rally to honor women on the same day of the abortion kerfluffle.
While Presidential candidates should not pick their positions on weighty moral issues on the weather vane of popular opinion, it is dubious if Trump's flip flops on abortion will help him with women voters. According to the recent Marquette Law poll, Trump's support from women lagged 11% behind men. Threatening to punish women for abortions will obviously alienate him with progressive voters who are pro-choice. However, flip flopping on anti-abortion views within hours of each other impeaches his newly formed pro-life positions too.
Well, Mr. Trump may have overcompensated to ingratiate himself with pro-life Republican voters for the Wisconsin Primary. When Chris Matthews pressed Trump about the consequences of banning abortions, Trump proposed that women having abortions should suffer some sort of legal penalty for incurring an illegal abortion (but men would be alright).
More than just wanting to punish women for having abortions, Trump seemed to acknowledge that women would still seek out illegal abortions in unmonitored clinics.
The public reaction to Trump's "modest proposal" was a swift and stern firestorm. The Hillary 2016 and Sanders campaigns immediately jumped on Trump's bold bluster to condemn this ham handed handling of womens' issues. On social media, a Dominican Friar indignity opined that those who wish to punish women for having abortions have no idea about their psychological or moral pain he hears about in the confessional.
The Trump campaign twice tried to walk their man from off the abortion ledge. At first, Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks tried to pawn decision making of penalties off to the states. But several hours after uttering this incredible idea, Trump took the counsel of his advisers and did an about face, walked back the punishing aborting mothers' idea to a more conventional Republican pro-life position of punishing the doctor and seeing the woman as a victim.
CNN noted that Trump took three abortion positions in one afternoon. Former 2016 Presidential rival and now Trump surrogate Dr. Ben Carson explained away Trump's peculiar position on punishing abortion women. Carson claimed that Trump (like himself) is not a professional politician and that he had been ambushed with the question. Judging from the three positions in a span of hours, Trump either had not thought much about the issue or needed to have some political sense knocked into him for the primary face offs.
This Trump gaffe created an opening for his Republican rival Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to issue a statement on the sanctity of human life and on affirming women.
In addition, Cruz had a previously scheduled rally to honor women on the same day of the abortion kerfluffle.
While Presidential candidates should not pick their positions on weighty moral issues on the weather vane of popular opinion, it is dubious if Trump's flip flops on abortion will help him with women voters. According to the recent Marquette Law poll, Trump's support from women lagged 11% behind men. Threatening to punish women for abortions will obviously alienate him with progressive voters who are pro-choice. However, flip flopping on anti-abortion views within hours of each other impeaches his newly formed pro-life positions too.
On the Politics of Punishing Aborting Mothers
While Donald Trump was on a MSNBC Hardball Townhall with Chris Matthews, made some extraordinary ejaculations about abortion. Pro-Lifers have been chary about Trump's recent conversion to being against abortion, especially as the Manhattan mogul had labeled himself as being "very pro-choice" in the past. Moreover, Trump continues to speak highly of Planned Parenthood's contributions to womens' health during Republican debates, even after the Center for Medical Progress' investigative videos implicating Planned Parenthood Clinics trafficking baby body parts for sale and altering abortions to get the most optimal harvest.
Well, Mr. Trump may have overcompensated to ingratiate himself with pro-life Republican voters for the Wisconsin Primary. When Chris Matthews pressed Trump about the consequences of banning abortions, Trump proposed that women having abortions should suffer some sort of legal penalty for incurring an illegal abortion (but men would be alright).
More than just wanting to punish women for having abortions, Trump seemed to acknowledge that women would still seek out illegal abortions in unmonitored clinics.
The public reaction to Trump's "modest proposal" was a swift and stern firestorm. The Hillary 2016 and Sanders campaigns immediately jumped on Trump's bold bluster to condemn this ham handed handling of womens' issues. On social media, a Dominican Friar indignity opined that those who wish to punish women for having abortions have no idea about their psychological or moral pain he hears about in the confessional.
The Trump campaign twice tried to walk their man from off the abortion ledge. At first, Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks tried to pawn decision making of penalties off to the states. But several hours after uttering this incredible idea, Trump took the counsel of his advisers and did an about face, walked back the punishing aborting mothers' idea to a more conventional Republican pro-life position of punishing the doctor and seeing the woman as a victim.
CNN noted that Trump took three abortion positions in one afternoon. Former 2016 Presidential rival and now Trump surrogate Dr. Ben Carson explained away Trump's peculiar position on punishing abortion women. Carson claimed that Trump (like himself) is not a professional politician and that he had been ambushed with the question. Judging from the three positions in a span of hours, Trump either had not thought much about the issue or needed to have some political sense knocked into him for the primary face offs.
This Trump gaffe created an opening for his Republican rival Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to issue a statement on the sanctity of human life and on affirming women.
In addition, Cruz had a previously scheduled rally to honor women on the same day of the abortion kerfluffle.
While Presidential candidates should not pick their positions on weighty moral issues on the weather vane of popular opinion, it is dubious if Trump's flip flops on abortion will help him with women voters. According to the recent Marquette Law poll, Trump's support from women lagged 11% behind men. Threatening to punish women for abortions will obviously alienate him with progressive voters who are pro-choice. However, flip flopping on anti-abortion views within hours of each other impeaches his newly formed pro-life positions too.
Well, Mr. Trump may have overcompensated to ingratiate himself with pro-life Republican voters for the Wisconsin Primary. When Chris Matthews pressed Trump about the consequences of banning abortions, Trump proposed that women having abortions should suffer some sort of legal penalty for incurring an illegal abortion (but men would be alright).
More than just wanting to punish women for having abortions, Trump seemed to acknowledge that women would still seek out illegal abortions in unmonitored clinics.
The public reaction to Trump's "modest proposal" was a swift and stern firestorm. The Hillary 2016 and Sanders campaigns immediately jumped on Trump's bold bluster to condemn this ham handed handling of womens' issues. On social media, a Dominican Friar indignity opined that those who wish to punish women for having abortions have no idea about their psychological or moral pain he hears about in the confessional.
The Trump campaign twice tried to walk their man from off the abortion ledge. At first, Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks tried to pawn decision making of penalties off to the states. But several hours after uttering this incredible idea, Trump took the counsel of his advisers and did an about face, walked back the punishing aborting mothers' idea to a more conventional Republican pro-life position of punishing the doctor and seeing the woman as a victim.
CNN noted that Trump took three abortion positions in one afternoon. Former 2016 Presidential rival and now Trump surrogate Dr. Ben Carson explained away Trump's peculiar position on punishing abortion women. Carson claimed that Trump (like himself) is not a professional politician and that he had been ambushed with the question. Judging from the three positions in a span of hours, Trump either had not thought much about the issue or needed to have some political sense knocked into him for the primary face offs.
This Trump gaffe created an opening for his Republican rival Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to issue a statement on the sanctity of human life and on affirming women.
In addition, Cruz had a previously scheduled rally to honor women on the same day of the abortion kerfluffle.
While Presidential candidates should not pick their positions on weighty moral issues on the weather vane of popular opinion, it is dubious if Trump's flip flops on abortion will help him with women voters. According to the recent Marquette Law poll, Trump's support from women lagged 11% behind men. Threatening to punish women for abortions will obviously alienate him with progressive voters who are pro-choice. However, flip flopping on anti-abortion views within hours of each other impeaches his newly formed pro-life positions too.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Editors Note: On Aphorisms and Authenticity
As District of Calamity marks its third anniversary, it seems right to reflect upon its methods and message.
One of the prominent features of this site are aphorisms. This is deliberate to have daily, pithy memes which can be inspiring, provocative or entertaining. What was originally intended as an impetus to post every day evolved into a feature which gives short yet thought-filled memes.
While DistrictofCalamity.com is oriented towards politics, not all wisdom of the world is drawn from the Federal City. This site revels in public policy analysis which is intended to last longer than the average politician’s promises, so it should not be locked into quotidian Capital Hill struggles.
Rather than just list texts which make eyes glaze over, District of Calamity pairs the pearl of wisdom with a narrative graphic. Often the graphic depicts the originator of the phrase so readers can match the meme to a person. But illustrating the gist of the quote can also be effective.
Some readers have challenged the use of quotes. After posting a quote attributed to Soren Kirkegaard, the interlocutor demanded “Are you a REAL Kieregaard scholar? If so, cite chapter and verse to the origins of the quote.” Well dear reader, the answer is no but not that it matters.
District of Calamity posts over 300 daily quotes a year. Rarely are memes simply cut and pasted from other sites. The Pearls of Wisdom project is a labor of love which encompasses an eclectic range of art, history, literature, philosophy, politics, pop culture and humor. However, it takes time to locate, create, arrange and publicize an alluvia of aphorisms, particularly without repetition.
Regular readers may notice that quotes are often correlated to the calendar, reflecting anniversaries, issues of the day and times of the season. In addition, strings of quotes may project a larger theme pointing to issues which impact the District of Calamity (sic).
When a saying sounds shaky or too good to be true, some effort is made to corroborate the quote, but it is not always a scholarly citation.
So for the Kierkegaard question, consider the site’s quotes to be as reliable as Wikipedia. It may be inspiring and even informative but you need to do your own homework to be certain before putting it in your dissertation.
Some critics have claimed that quotes are taken out of context, such as Bobby Jindal on immigration and assimilation. This critique was comical as a 55 minute video of the speech in question was also embedded in the post. It is dubious if the progressive protestor spent the same time appreciating the quote in context before pulling out the proverbial poison pen. But even when chapter and verse can be given, it is not usually included lest a meme look like a pharmaceutical disclaimer chyron or the credit roll for Bambi Meets Godzilla.
A reader recently claimed that a quote about society from Cal Thomas was confusing because it could mean anything. Well, knowing who said something can be illuminating. If the reader knows who Cal Thomas is, then the prescriptions for fixing society would be quite clear. Nevertheless, the gist of the aphorism that our leaders are a reflection of societal values is valid without that insight.
Another website visitor was agitated about a piece about bigotry by George Bernard Shaw. The reader offered an unsolicited education about Shaw’s social sins. In this instance, the source of the quotation was provocative and intentionally ironic considering Shaw’s Faustian socialistic foundation-- however the truth of the aphorism was indubitable.
The internet can be a conduit of thoughtful two way communication. So if readers can correct a mis-attributed meme, it is appreciated and may be incorporated as warranted. Unfortunately, contributors have demanded corrections which were not warranted and perseverated. For example, a graphic countered the claim that Ted Cruz knew nothing about a Second Amendment case. Cruz was associated with arguing the Heller case before the Supreme Court, when in actuality he had only offered an amicus brief. The mis-attribution was noted and credit was given, but the correction did not moot the gist of the post so it was not withdrawn. But that was not satisfactory to the correspondent, who harbored a hatred for the politician.
While it is hoped that you will be inspired and intellectually stimulated by aphorisms, if you question the authenticity, please offer gentle correction with affirmative information if necessary. Feedback can be useful and is often incorporated without fanfare. In the end, if a reader finds that one's charitable contribution is unsatisfactory, then please seek truth where you can find it.
One of the prominent features of this site are aphorisms. This is deliberate to have daily, pithy memes which can be inspiring, provocative or entertaining. What was originally intended as an impetus to post every day evolved into a feature which gives short yet thought-filled memes.
While DistrictofCalamity.com is oriented towards politics, not all wisdom of the world is drawn from the Federal City. This site revels in public policy analysis which is intended to last longer than the average politician’s promises, so it should not be locked into quotidian Capital Hill struggles.
Rather than just list texts which make eyes glaze over, District of Calamity pairs the pearl of wisdom with a narrative graphic. Often the graphic depicts the originator of the phrase so readers can match the meme to a person. But illustrating the gist of the quote can also be effective.
Some readers have challenged the use of quotes. After posting a quote attributed to Soren Kirkegaard, the interlocutor demanded “Are you a REAL Kieregaard scholar? If so, cite chapter and verse to the origins of the quote.” Well dear reader, the answer is no but not that it matters.
District of Calamity posts over 300 daily quotes a year. Rarely are memes simply cut and pasted from other sites. The Pearls of Wisdom project is a labor of love which encompasses an eclectic range of art, history, literature, philosophy, politics, pop culture and humor. However, it takes time to locate, create, arrange and publicize an alluvia of aphorisms, particularly without repetition.
Regular readers may notice that quotes are often correlated to the calendar, reflecting anniversaries, issues of the day and times of the season. In addition, strings of quotes may project a larger theme pointing to issues which impact the District of Calamity (sic).
When a saying sounds shaky or too good to be true, some effort is made to corroborate the quote, but it is not always a scholarly citation.
So for the Kierkegaard question, consider the site’s quotes to be as reliable as Wikipedia. It may be inspiring and even informative but you need to do your own homework to be certain before putting it in your dissertation.
Some critics have claimed that quotes are taken out of context, such as Bobby Jindal on immigration and assimilation. This critique was comical as a 55 minute video of the speech in question was also embedded in the post. It is dubious if the progressive protestor spent the same time appreciating the quote in context before pulling out the proverbial poison pen. But even when chapter and verse can be given, it is not usually included lest a meme look like a pharmaceutical disclaimer chyron or the credit roll for Bambi Meets Godzilla.
A reader recently claimed that a quote about society from Cal Thomas was confusing because it could mean anything. Well, knowing who said something can be illuminating. If the reader knows who Cal Thomas is, then the prescriptions for fixing society would be quite clear. Nevertheless, the gist of the aphorism that our leaders are a reflection of societal values is valid without that insight.
Another website visitor was agitated about a piece about bigotry by George Bernard Shaw. The reader offered an unsolicited education about Shaw’s social sins. In this instance, the source of the quotation was provocative and intentionally ironic considering Shaw’s Faustian socialistic foundation-- however the truth of the aphorism was indubitable.
The internet can be a conduit of thoughtful two way communication. So if readers can correct a mis-attributed meme, it is appreciated and may be incorporated as warranted. Unfortunately, contributors have demanded corrections which were not warranted and perseverated. For example, a graphic countered the claim that Ted Cruz knew nothing about a Second Amendment case. Cruz was associated with arguing the Heller case before the Supreme Court, when in actuality he had only offered an amicus brief. The mis-attribution was noted and credit was given, but the correction did not moot the gist of the post so it was not withdrawn. But that was not satisfactory to the correspondent, who harbored a hatred for the politician.
While it is hoped that you will be inspired and intellectually stimulated by aphorisms, if you question the authenticity, please offer gentle correction with affirmative information if necessary. Feedback can be useful and is often incorporated without fanfare. In the end, if a reader finds that one's charitable contribution is unsatisfactory, then please seek truth where you can find it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)