Three-Dot Thursday...
Since I've written three full-length articles already this week, I'm going to slack off a bit and today just run with a few items which caught my eye. So, for once, a short column today. As always, these are presented in "three-dot" format, in homage to the late great Herb Caen...
...Seems like closing the background-check loopholes is going to be the easiest gun control proposal to pass Congress, if public polling is any indication. Requiring background checks at gun shows is polling in multiple states with an astounding 80-95 percent approval. That is pretty overwhelming, politically. I mean, nothing political polls at 90 percent and above, these days. This level of support is so convincing that -- even if none of the other proposal pass -- it is likely that some form of closing the background-check loopholes will make it into law. That's my reading of the situation, for what it's worth...
...The House of Representatives has won their gambit to pass a so-called "no budget, no pay" provision in their short-term debt ceiling rise bill, as their language has now cleared the Senate on its way to President Obama's desk. This isn't the real, hair-on-your-chest "No Budget, No Pay Act," of course, as I've pointed out in the recent past. But it may indeed serve to accomplish the House Republicans' purpose: to force Harry Reid to pass something he can call a "budget" so that the paychecks for senators don't get stuck in an escrow account for a short period of time. While minor, this is the first political victory for Republicans yet this year, so you've got to at least give them some credit, I guess...
...Speaking of the "No Budget, No Pay Act" and other bizarrely-related subjects, it was recently pointed out to me that Wikipedia is now using my writings as "source" material in a number of articles, from Alexander Hamilton's public sex scandal (the first in American history!) to Saint Patrick and the snakes. While ego-food of this nature is always kind of fun, it is a little strange to see what gets picked up as scholarly research and what gets ignored, I have to admit.
For example, the strangest of these citations is some sort of self-fulfilling Godwin's Law logical loop, as I am embarrassingly listed as a cite (on articles about the 1936 Olympics torch relay) for a quote by Adolph Hitler. For the life of me, I can't remember where I got that quote from, although it may be buried in my notes somewhere. Perhaps I originally got it from Wikipedia itself, which would truly be a closed loop of Möbius-like proportions.
So the lesson is: don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, kids, when doing your homework -- or at the very least, vet those sources. Heh.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
CW
" While minor, this is the first political victory for Republicans yet this year, so you've got to at least give them some credit, I guess..."
Filibuster "reform" might qualify as a GOP victory, as well.
Filibuster "reform" might qualify as a GOP victory, as well.
Or, in this case, lack thereof.. :D
Let's face the facts..
As down as the GOP is these days, there is almost no where they CAN go but up... :D
Michale
Speak2 -
Yeah, maybe. McConnell certainly did seem to work his will on Reid, I'll admit. Good point.
Michale -
Oh, I dunno. See: Federalists, Whigs.
Heh.
-CW
Do you think there's any real chance of that? It's what I've been rooting for for about twelve years, but I'm not optimistic.
Do you think there's any real chance of that? It's what I've been rooting for for about twelve years, but I'm not optimistic.
The real question is, would that be in the best interests of the country..
Oh sure, the Left would go gaa-gaa... But they are always gaa-gaa over things that hurt the country...
Michale
The Democrats would have a schism faster than you can say "DINO blue dogs". It's the fastest way back to having two mostly-centrist, ideologically-somewhat-overlapping parties.
Hello Michale:
Your reply to me in an earlier comments page went
>>>
I had decided to stop responding to Michale.
Many always make a point of this. :D Which indicates my position is correct a lot more than those who "stop responding" care to admit.
>>>
No. A major reason is comments of the sort
>>>
Oh sure, the Left would go gaa-gaa... But they are always gaa-gaa over things that hurt the country...
>>>
I feel this is less than appropriate here. I feel that CW has created a space where more constructive discussion is happening.
The quoted comment does not describe CW or the people commenting on his site (as far as I can tell). While many are "left" it does seem like nearly all do want what is best for the country. You may disagree with their beliefs or proscriptions for how to achieve those goals, but your expression of that is utter nonsense and doesn't serve this site well.
My thoughts, 'nuff said.
90%+ are for it in polls.
A majority of gun owners are for it in polls.
A majority of NRA members are for it in polls.
The NRA? Against it.
As if it wasn't already clear that the NRA doesn't represent the people, gun owners or even their members the recent polling could not have made it any more obvious how out of touch with reality they are...
I feel this is less than appropriate here. I feel that CW has created a space where more constructive discussion is happening.
And you would be spot on..
However, the fact that CW has created a semi-utopia where people CAN disagree politely and respectfully does NOT erase the long history that the Left has with attacking this country and supporting persons and interests that are detrimental to the safety and security of this nation. As recently as the Bush era when Democrats rallied AGAINST actions that were taken in the defense of this nation. Actions that Democrats completely supported when it was "their guy" who was POTUS..
In other words, saying that the Left has gone gaa-gaa over actions that hurt this country is a true and correct statement.
That fact that you and I can discuss such actions in an adult and mature manner is a testament to the tolerance that CW has built up here at CW.COM...
You may disagree with their beliefs or proscriptions for how to achieve those goals, but your expression of that is utter nonsense and doesn't serve this site well.
I can provide fact after fact after fact that proves what I have stated is NOT "utter nonsense"..
The only question is would you accept such facts or hide behind partisan rhetoric..
In other words, can you concede that the Left is NOT as pure as the driven snow. That Democrats specifically and the Left in general has not always acted in the best interests of this country??
Because, if you can't, then any hope of meaningful dialog is lost...
In short, can you concede that sometimes, Democrats are part of the problem and NOT part of the solution??
Michale.....
Didn't anybody around here watch the Hagel hearing?
Didn't anybody around here watch the Hagel hearing?
I caught the re-cap..
Hagel got trounced..
Totally unprepared..
Michale
Michale,
How many minutes long was the re-cap you watched or did you watch the whole eight hours?
In any event, is that all you have to say about it?
In any event, is that all you have to say about it?
I am just saying that I would have thought a man who wanted to lead the most awesome and deadly military force in the history of the planet would be a little better prepared..
But I guess Hagel was thinking, "I have the Obama kiss of approval... What more do I need???"
Michale
Michale,
Well, my take on the entire hearing ... as a result of the asinine questioning coming from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, I learned absolutely NOTHING from this hearing about anything of any substance. And, I have a lot to learn!
Liz,
What you should have taken away from the hearings is this..
The SINGLE biggest threat to the world in the here and now is a nuclear armed Iran...
And Hagen's reaction to it is, "eh? What's the big deal...???"
Michale
Why aren't you watching the half-time show?
By the way, if that's your take away from the hearing then I can only conclude that you didn't see much of the hearing.
The Obama administration is handling the Iran situation very well as you will soon see.
What do you think should be done about the "SINGLE biggest threat to the world" that hasn't already been done.
Surely you don't think war with Iran is an option.
Why aren't you watching the half-time show?
We don't watch Network or Cable TV.. :D
The Obama administration is handling the Iran situation very well as you will soon see.
It's always been "soon" to see for the last 4 years...
And Iran comes closer and closer to having nuclear weapons...
Surely you don't think war with Iran is an option.
Diplomacy has failed.
Sanctions have failed.
Covert warfare has been mildly successful..
A combination of covert and overt warfare is the ONLY option that has a chance of success...
Bomb them back into the stone age.
"We'll blast off this rock and nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
-Ripley, ALIENS
:D
Michale
Michale,
If you think a war with Iran is a good or viable option then, to borrow a phrase, you should have your head examined, my friend.
If you think a war with Iran is a good or viable option then, to borrow a phrase, you should have your head examined, my friend.
It's the ONLY viable option..
Point to anything else that has worked..
You can't because Iran is STILL marching on towards nuclear weapons..
Michale