How To Win Online Arguments

Ken AshfordBloggingLeave a Comment

Win online arguments!
Enjoy battling it out on the bulletin boards? Like getting stuck into a good, pointless argument with only one aim – to win at any cost? Then this guide is for you – simply follow the 12-point guide below and success will be yours!

1. Get friendly
Always refer to your opponent by his/her first name. Your messages will seem warm and friendly, despite the rabid ferocity of their content. After a few exchanges, begin to use a corruption of your opponent’s name – begin with "William", then change to "Billy", then change to something like "Billy-Boy". Women don’t enjoy having their names shortened either, so make sure that "Mrs. Elizabeth C. Osbourne-Smythe PhD, QC" is always addressed as "Lizzy".

2. Picky! Picky!
Criticising your opponents spelling or grammar will make you look pedantic. Far better to deliberately misread a message, then follow-up with an utterly incongruous statement. And if they make a factual error – no matter how small – make sure you’re on hand to remind them of their error as often as possible.

3. Be selective
Selective editing is a good way to avoid engaging with your opponent’s better arguments. Simply delete that intelligent, pointed question which ends paragraph three and reply instead to the weaker arguments beneath. Should your opponent post something like "I’m sorry but you’re talking crap", snip everything but the first two words then graciously accept his apology.

4. Showboat
Once the argument is in full swing, publicly thank all those people who have e-mailed you privately with their messages of support. Claim that you are too busy to reply to each of them personally at the moment, but promise to continue fighting on their behalf.

5. You’ve got history
Boasting about how long you’ve been subscribed to a forum or newsgroup is not advised. Far better to make obscure references to the forum/newsgroup when only thirteen people knew it existed. Fondly recall a similar flame-war which took place in 1989 between "Big Al" and "Phyllis from Kent". If a newly arrived opponent produces a particularly strong argument, tell them that you’ve already discussed (and won) this debate last year and that you’ve no intention of repeating your crushing arguments all over again for their benefit.

6. There’s lots of you
Always refer to yourself in the plural, as though you are speaking on behalf of the whole newsgroup: "all we are trying to say is…" sounds much more pompous than "all I am trying to say is…". When other people join in the thread, the rules are simple: if they side with you, follow-up immediately and enthusiastically, congratulating them on their courage; if they side with your opponent, ignore the tossers.

7. One step ahead
Pre-empt all replies. Tell your opponent that you know exactly how he or she is going to respond to your message because you’ve seen it all before. List all potential counter-arguments to your position and invite your opponent to choose one.

8. Beer and arguments don’t mix
Never, ever, rejoin a long-running argument after ten pints in the pub. Although the devastating logic of your drunken ramblings will seem inescapable to you at the time, your opponent will lap up the incoherent, inconsistent, beer-troubled flaws in your argument and you’ll be unlikely to recover. If you’ve been involved in a particularly vehement argument where you’ve staked your reputation on the line, get a friend to lock away your PC on pub nights.

9. Bamboozle with links
If your opponent’s tenacity is proving too much for you, try a Google counter-attack. This involves posting up an endless stream of vaguely related links, insisting that there’s more than enough evidence contained in the 50+ linked sites to crush any counter argument. Ensure you keep the references vague and preferably link to pages that are stuffed full of even more links. If your enemy can’t find the evidence they’re demanding, blame them for their lack of research skills – after all, you’ve already provided them with ample resources.

10. I didn’t say that!
Never apologise for anything, ever.

11. Play dirty
Think the argument isn’t going your way? Simply post one long, highly antagonistic message in which you completely misrepresent everything your opponent has said in the last three weeks. End by martyrishly declaring that the argument has dragged on for too long and that you have no choice but to kill-file/ignore your opponent. Ignore any further messages and/or quietly re-register under a new name.

12. Victory is yours!
Won the argument? Congratulations – but remember to be utterly unbearable in victory. Make generous excuses for your opponent’s behaviour ("I know you primary school technicians can be under a lot of stress", "the menopause can be a very difficult time", etc), but retain a calm tone of superiority ("the important thing is to learn from your mistakes"). State that you hope your opponent stays around and reassure him/her that other subscribers are sure to forget all about this sorry business in a couple of years.

Original: © 1999 Steven Jones, updates and additions © urban75, March 2004.

Legislating From The Bench

Ken AshfordCourts/LawLeave a Comment

When the President came out against "legislating from the bench" did that mean he’s no longer supporting Janice Rogers Brown? Here’s the Alliance for Justice’s writeup:

Justice Brown’s disdain for government runs so deep that she urges “conservative” judges to invalidate legislation that expands the role of government, saying that it “inevitably transform[s]… a democracy … into a kleptocracy.” Following her own “pro-activist” advice, Justice Brown – always in dissent – uses constitutional provisions or defies the legislature’s intent to restrict or invalidate laws she doesn’t like, such as California’s anti-discrimination statute (which she condemns as protecting only “narrow” personal interests), hotel development fees intended to preserve San Francisco’s affordable housing supply, rent control ordinances, statutory fees for manufacturers that put lead-based products into the stream of commerce, and a false advertising law applied to companies making false claims about their workplace practices to boost sales. Justice Brown’s colleagues on the court have repeatedly remarked on her disrespect for such legislative policy judgments, criticizing her, in different cases, for “imposing … [a] personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state”; asserting “such an activist role for the courts”; “quarrel[ing]… not with our holding in this case, but with this court’s previous decision … and, even more fundamentally, with the Legislature itself”; and “permit[ting] a court … to reweigh the policy choices that underlay a legislative or quasi-legislative classification or to reevaluate the efficacy of the legislative measure.”

Food for thought? Of course not. Just rank hypocrisy.

Back To Blogging…

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

…after a few days hiatus.  Unusual work demands, home Internet problems, and amateur theatrics (literally) kept me busy.  Here’s a few things to amuse yourselves with:

Titanic Passanger List

The Gay Agenda

Computer Animation Get Better And Better (Check out the hands!)

Imagine/Take A Walk On The Wild Side Remix Sung By George Bush

Seeing With Sound

Alcohol Intake Without Liquid (no kidding!)

Gallery of UFO Images

Kinda Like American Idol (but for kittens!)

Terrorism Alerts

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

By the way, notice how we kept having "terror alerts" right up to the election, and then, you know, nothing.  Don’t tell me they color-code system wasn’t politically-motivated to manipulate the public.  Fear sells.

Family Research Council And the Klan

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

Max Blumenthal shines the spotlight on Tony Perkins, Family Research Council President and Friend of Frist. [Note: the Family Research Council, founded by James Dobson, held a little "Justice Sunday" fest last weekend — where Bill Frist spoke via tape — in which they complained that the Democratic filibuster of Bush’s judicial nominees was an attack on faith and religion]. Blumenthal writes in the Nation:

Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America’s premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.

Would Jesus pay 82K to a Klansman?

Sounds like Perkins has less of a problem with white robes than he does with black ones.

— from Roger Ailes

And while we are talking about the Family Research Council’s Klan connections, why not put the spotlight on their hypocrisy on the filibuster issue:

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted that the Family Research Council (FRC), which is currently campaigning to stop filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominees by Senate Democrats, was quite vocal in the late 1990s in defending the right to filibuster another presidential nominee, James C. Hormel, who was nominated by President Clinton as ambassador to Luxembourg.

Dictating Moral Convictions

Ken AshfordRepublicansLeave a Comment

Log Cabin Republican Andrew Sullivan speaks out about the mindset of the religious right:

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.

But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’"

Except that wasn’t really Andrew Sullivan.  It was Andrew Sullivan quoting Barry Goldwater, the co-father-of-modern-conservatism (with Ronald Reagan).  Like Reagan, Goldwater believed that the role of government should be small and unobstrusive.  It should allow for people’s personal beliefs to flourish, rather than instructing people on what to think and hold sacred.

Barry Goldwater was an S.O.B., warmonger, and avowed liberal-hater.  So how dangerous has the right side of the political/religious spectrum become when it turns the stomach of Barry Goldwater?  Could he even BE a Republican today?

Report Card On Bush’s Global War On Terrorism

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

A failing grade:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate on whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said on Tuesday.

The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed on the numbers by State Department and intelligence officials on Monday.

The aides were told the surge partly reflected an increased tally of violence in Kashmir, which is claimed by India and Pakistan, and the devotion of more manpower to U.S. monitoring efforts, which resulted in more attacks being counted overall.

The State Department last year initially released erroneous figures that understated the attacks, fatalities and casualties in 2003 and used the figures to claim the Bush administration was prevailing in the war on terrorism.

It later said the number killed and injured in 2003 was more than double its original count and said "significant" terrorist attacks — those that kill or seriously injure someone, cause more than $10,000 in damage or attempt to do either of those things — rose to a 20-year high of 175.

The State Department last week unleashed a new debate about the numbers by saying it would no longer release them in its annual terrorism report but that the newly created National Counterterrorism Center that compiles the data would do so.

A spokesman for the CIA, which is handling media inquiries for the NCTC, last week said no decisions had been made although other officials expected the data to be made public.

***

"What it effectively means is that the Bush administration and the CIA haven’t been putting the staff resources necessary and have missed 80 percent of the world’s terrorist incidents" in past years, said a Democratic congressional aide. "How can you have an effective counterterrorism policy from that?"

The Nuclear Compromise Revisited

Ken AshfordCongressLeave a Comment

You know what I posted here about the Nuclear Compromise?  Turns out my tea-leaf reading was wrong.

Kos explains why:

So Frist says:

Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn’t interested in any deal that fails to ensure Senate confirmation for all of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Reid just engaged Frist in a game of chicken, and Frist blinked first.

Reid has been extrememly effective in whipping up opposition to the Nuclear Option, garnering strong grass- and netroots support, editorial board support, and popular support (as the latest polls show scant appetitite for ending the filibuster).

But in order to avoid looking like obstructionists, Demcorats had to make efforts to "find a compromise", lest the chattering class get the vapors from such Democratic intransigence.

Had Frist accepted the offers for compromise, Bush would’ve gotten the majority of his judges through, and Democrats would’ve gotten — who knows what. All published compromise offers didn’t seem to give our side anything.

So Democrats would’ve faced a sea of criticism from our own side for snatching defeat out of the hands of victory. Frist and Co. would’ve finally gotten a procedural victory against Reid (who has run circles around them thus far). And all that good will Reid had built in the netroots over the past four months would’ve evaporated in one fell swoop.

It was one heck of a gamble, but the Senator from Nevada played his cards right.

Frist painted himself into a corner, having whipped up the forces of wingnuttery into a froth, he could not back down without damaging his White House aspirations for 2008. He’s banking on the crazies to get him the nomination.

So Reid got the Democrats to look conciliatory, forcing Frist and his Republicans to look even more inflexible than before.

Damn the guy is good. I’m glad he’s on our side.

Melissa Rogers On Christian Manipulation

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

Melissa Rogers, a visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School, says it all:

I AM A CHURCHGOING, Bible-believing Baptist, but I recently learned that I’m not a Christian. Indeed, I’ve not only learned that I’m not a Christian, I’ve also learned that I’m anti-Christian and hostile to religion. Why? Because I dare to disagree with a certain political and legal agenda.

That’s the message that is scheduled to be preached in a Kentucky church Sunday, at an event sponsored by the Family Research Council and joined by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The event is titled "Justice Sunday: Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith."

The press release for the event states that certain judicial nominees are being opposed "because they are people of faith and moral conviction." It labels a broad range of court decisions as "liberal, anti-Christian dogma," claiming that "activist courts … have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms." In sum, the release says that "we must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith."

Thus, according to supporters of this agenda, including one of the foremost leaders in Congress, anyone who has a different view of the Constitution is an advocate of "liberal, anti-Christian dogma." Anyone who takes a contrary position on Senate rules of procedure is hostile to faith. End of story.

It’s time to tell the truth.

There is no "filibuster against people of faith." Religious people are on both sides of the debate about the filibuster and certain Bush-nominated judges. And it’s wrong for one of the country’s foremost political leaders to lend legitimacy to a contrary notion. Just as no one should have to pass a religious test in order to hold political office, no one should have to pass a political test in order to claim religion or morality.

Further, the Senate has already confirmed the overwhelming majority of President Bush’s judicial nominees, and there is every reason to assume that most of these judges are religious people. Many of these judges presumably share the president’s views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Of course, it would be improper to oppose judges because of their faith, but it is legitimate for senators to inquire about a judge’s constitutional philosophy and ability to follow settled law, whatever his or her personal opinion. And surely reasonable minds can agree that something is seriously awry when a non-Catholic senator, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, lectures Catholic senators about Catholic doctrine during a hearing on judicial nominations.

Moreover, contrary to the Family Research Council’s claims, court decisions have not resulted in the "banning of school prayer" and "the expulsion of the Ten Commandments from public spaces." As courts have repeatedly recognized, students have every right to pray in public schools, as long as the school does not sponsor the prayer.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that if public parks are generally open for community group rallies and signs, religious rallies and signs must be welcome, too, so long as it’s clear that the government itself isn’t promoting religion. Indeed, many deeply religious people support these principles precisely because they don’t want the government secularizing the sacred and otherwise meddling in religion.

Just as the government always perverts the faith it promotes, politicians cheapen the religion they seek to embrace when they push partisan politics in churches. When Jesus cast the moneychangers out of the temple, He said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer."

Houses of worship are holy places, not political precincts.

Dr. Frist is wrong to seek political advantage through this event, and his error is compounded by his tacit approval of these illegitimate claims of persecution and the smearing of others as "anti-religious" simply because they differ on certain political and legal issues.

When I hear attempts to manipulate people in the pews, I always think of one of my grandmother’s favorite Bible verses: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7).

May people of all faiths and political stripes reject a spirit of fear and speak the truth, with power and with love.

Amen to that, sister!

Learnin’ The Facts Of Life (Child Abuse Episode)

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Sex/Morality/Family Values3 Comments

I note with growing alarm at the Christian Right’s embrace of what appears to be, arguably, child abuse.  Stuff like this:

Bonney Lake police said Rachel Lambert claimed the children’s behavior had gotten progressively worse over the past month and that she disciplined the children by feeding them jalapeno peppers, the documents indicated.

The 10-year-old boy said "he had a hot pepper placed in his mouth and then had his mouth taped shut," the documents indicated. He told police "he swallowed the pepper so it would not be in his mouth anymore."

Police said another form of punishment Lambert used was to have the two children "stand in a tub of cold water and write out sentences."

Hot peppers in the mouth? 

What would possess a parenat to even think of doing such a thing?

Well, it all starts from charletons like James Dobson, who writes things like:

"Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited."

"Most (children) need to be spanked now and then."

"Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, ‘You must obey me.’"

"When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous purifier."

"Minor pain can…provide excellent motivation for the child… There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the neck… When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain saying, ‘This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs’."

"When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous purifier."

"Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining… I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."

These quotes are from Dobson’s two best known books, Dare to Discipline and The Strong Willed Child.

Fortunately, not everyone is a convert to Dobson’s methods.  Amazon customers have described their experiences with Dobsonian discipline this way, in their comments to the original edition of Dare to Discipline:

"My father used Dobson’s methodology as a license to strike. If you wish to die alone in a nursing home, I suggest you listen to those who worship hate and violence."

"Book should be entitled "Dare to Hit Your Child with Whatever is Handy". Dobsen extols (sic) virtues of his wife snapping their not yet two-year-old with a switch across the shins, can you imagine? He also attests that he received great benefit, as a child, by being spontaneously walloped by his mom’s girdle, complete with buckles and straps."

For the new edition of Dare to Discipline:

"It seems to this reader that, at the core, Dr. Dobson has no trust in the abilities of children to learn, to reason, to develop as moral creatures from the example and gentle teaching of their parents. And, through the course of the discipline methods he advocates, he has no compunction about destroying a child’s trust in his or her parents."

For the new edition of The Strong Willed Child:

"His methods are mainly those of the schoolyard bully and seem to be contrived to raise kids who are afraid of you. Is that really the result you want?"

Still, those who rever Dobson typically see his child-whacking recommendations as sound.  After all, he is the "Focus on the Family" guy, so how could he be wrong? 

And so, armed with a license-to-hurt granted by an authority figure, it comes no surprise that many "Christians" have taken corporal punishment to the next step.

Enter the "Creative Correction" movement.  The name itself sounds like the whole point is to prevent the parents from getting bored with the same old blows, but that’s not it at all. The theory is that the punishment should fit the crime in a Biblically based way.

The guru of the movement is Lisa Whelchel, who is in a position to know how to raise children by virtue of the fact that she played Blair on "The Facts of Life".  Here’s what the Washington Post said on the issue, refereLisancing Whelchel’s popular book on the subject.

Hot sauce adds a kick to salsa, barbeque, falafel and hundreds of other foods. But some parents use it in a different recipe, one they think will yield better-behaved children: They put a drop of the fiery liquid on a child’s tongue as punishment for lying, biting, hitting or other offenses.

"Hot saucing," or "hot tongue," has roots in Southern culture, according to some advocates of the controversial disciplinary method, but it has spread throughout the country. Nobody keeps track of how many parents do it, but most experts contacted for this story, including pediatricians, psychologists and child welfare professionals, were familiar with it.

[…]

The hot pepper technique’s current popularity is due in part to Whelchel, a former Mickey Mouse Club Mouseketeer and actress who played the character Blair on the television series "The Facts of Life" in the 1980s.

In "Creative Correction," now in its fifth printing, the mother of three provides parents with a variety of tips.

For example, she suggests hiding something a child has failed to put away, to teach the lesson that things left out may disappear. She suggests telling a child who refuses to hold your hand while crossing a street, "I can either hold your hand or hold your hair."

In addition, Whelchel offers the following: "For lying or other offenses of the tongue, I ‘spank’ my kids’ tongues. I put a tiny drop of hot sauce on the end of my finger and dab it onto my child’s tongue. It stings for a while, but it abates. (It’s the memory that lingers!)"

Hot sauce on a child’s tongue, Blair?  I missed the episode where Mrs. Garrett made you taste Texas Pete as a disciplinary measure.

But now I see what may possess some parents to stuff peppers down their child’s throat.

Thankfully, McIlhenny Co., the maker of Tabasco Sauce, does not endorse "hot tongue" and calls the practice "strange and scary" and "abusive." They are right.  It’s also dangerous:

Kendrick [a Tabasco Sauce spokeman] says parents who use the technique are "at the very least… ill-informed." He pointed out that many parents are not aware that hot sauce can burn a child’s esophagus and cause the tongue to swell — a potential choking hazard.

"There are many different kinds of hot sauce on the market, and parents who say they know the dilution to use so it won’t sting, or say they only use one drop, are wrong," Kendrick said. "It’s done because it hurts. It stings. It burns. It makes you nauseous."

Capsaicin, the substance that makes peppers hot, inflames membranes in the eyes, nose and mouth. While many adults find this feeling pleasurable, capsaicin can cause negative reactions even in the third of the adult population that has no tolerance for ingesting it, according to Joel Gregory, publisher of Chile Pepper magazine.

There are additional risks for children. Giorgio Kulp, a pediatrician in Montgomery County, said that the risk of swelling as well as the possibility of unknown allergies make the use of hot sauce on children dangerous.

If a few drops of Tabasco can be a choking hazard in child’s mouth, how dangerous is swallowing a whole pepper with your mouth taped shut, after the adults have gone, and left you tied to the water heater?   And more importantly, is that what Jesus would do?   Just wondering…

The Last Word On WMDs

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

The final remaining hope of the WMD-last-gaspers has been the notion that Saddam did have WMD but transferred it all to Syria before the war. As I recall, the most popular scenario involved a fleet of ambulances and some hideouts in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.

But no. Not only did Saddam not have any WMD in Iraq, the Iraq Survey Group has now officially concluded that he didn’t secretly hand it over to Syria either:

Although Syria helped Iraq evade U.N.-imposed sanctions by shipping military and other products across its borders, the investigators "found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD."

….Iraqi officials whom the group was able to interview "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria," the report said.

Like the grassy knoll folks, I’m sure the WMD conspiracy theorists will latch onto enough loose ends in the report to convince themselves that Saddam really did have WMD but hid it too cleverly for us to find it. You know, because Saddam and his crew were so clever and thorough in everything else they did.

For the rest of us, though, the story is over. Saddam was just a sorry and deluded tinpot tyrant. He posed a major threat to his own people, but never to us.

Kevin Drum

The Nuclear Compromise

Ken AshfordCongressLeave a Comment

I’ll let Josh Marshall set the stage and share his thoughts:

The Washington Post and other news outlets tonight are reporting that Senate Democrats are hinting about a possible compromise on judges — specifically, that they might cut a deal that would allow two or more of the seven filibustered judges to go through.

This in turn has caused splutters of outrage and bewilderment among some Democrats who believe Sens. Reid and Durbin are considering throwing in the towel just as it is becoming clear that voters overwhelmingly oppose what the Senate Republicans are trying to do.

But I’m not so sure.

Let me first stipulate that I know no more about any potential deal than what I’ve read in the papers this evening. And the devil is most certainly in the details.

A deal that would let most of the seven judges go through in exchange for assurances that would allow Senate Republicans to try to go nuclear again six months from now would be a disaster.

A deal that would allow perhaps the two least egregious judges to go through in exchange for taking the nuclear option off the table for good might not be a bad deal at all.

The key here is that there are many moving parts to this puzzle and it’s key to understand each one of them.

First, this isn’t just about these seven judges. It’s about three and a half more years of judges President Bush still has yet to appoint. And even more, it’s about one or more crucial Supreme Court nominations he’ll get to make. The American judiciary will look very different in 2009 with the filibuster than without it. And letting through a couple judges now to secure that difference isn’t necessarily such a bad deal.

Second, there are sometimes tactical advantages in appearing to be reasonable, even if the reasonable compromises you float are ones your political opponents will have a very hard time accepting.

And this brings us to the third and perhaps most important point. There’s no way to judge the best way to approach this stand-off without seeing clearly just what a powder keg Bill Frist and company are sitting on.

If you think ending the filibuster is the ‘nuclear option’, just watch what happens when Bill Frist rings up James Dobson and says, "Sorry about the judge thing. The Democrats won’t let us."

At that point you can start with the horizontal mushroom clouds coming out of Dobson’s ears and it’s pretty much a chain reaction through the rest of Wingnut Nation from there on.

That means two things. First, Frist probably just isn’t in a position to accept the ‘compromises’ Democrats are floating. And I suspect they know that. Second, should he accept such a compromise, it will unleash something close to a civil war on the right flank of the Republican party — a development with possibly grave consequences for Republicans in 2006 and thereafter.

So, to pull this all together, I’m not saying Democrats shouldn’t keep up the pressure on their senators. They must. And any deal that doesn’t put the nuclear option off the table in a permanent and meaningfully binding way is a joke. But let’s remember what this is about. It’s about whether the Democrats retain their significant lever of power to block President Bush’s most extreme judicial nominees. Democrats give that up, they lose. Republicans give that up, they lose. It’s really that simple. A couple judges passed through are a secondary matter. From having watched so far, I get the sense that Sen. Reid sees all those moving parts. So I’m inclined to give him the room for maneuver he needs to back these folks into a ghastly trap.

I’m not sure I agree.  These ten judges ARE the most extreme.  Democrats HAVE compromised, by allowing 95% of Bush’s judicial nominees through.  And I think the American people understand that.  And if they haven’t, this is an opportunity to educate them. 

Also, I’m not sure that the un-reality-based right flank of the right wing party will go into disarray if a two-judge compromise is reached.  Dobson perhaps, but not necessarily all of them.  These people have a tendancy to claim victory when such a victory is far from certain (witness, Iraq).

I’m not opposed to a compromise at some point, but since the tide is going toward the Democrats and against those who want to push through these ten judges, why start raising the subject now?  Are we going to snatch a compromise from the jaws of victory?

For those just tuning in, Media Matters has an excellent backgrounder on the birth of the term "nuclear option."

UPDATE:  Ezra agrees.

UPDATE #2:  Here’s the key data from the WaPo poll that I linked to above:

The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to block these nominations?

Right 48
Wrong 36

Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees?

Support 26
Oppose 66

So I ask again, why should Dems feel compelled to compromise when the majority of people are opposing the Republicans on this?

Okay . . .?

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

I have no idea what it means, but this post on Fafblog — reprinted here in its entirety — brought a smile to my face:

We have been to the opera. And by "the opera" we mean "the post office" and by "been to" we mean "thrown buckets of fish at" and by "we" we mean "people who are not us."

WHO Is Against People Of Faith?

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Godstuff, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

This past weekend, there was a liberal-bashing conference put on by Family Research Council in which it was said — falsely — that Democrats are against "people of faith", particularly judges.  It’s an insidious lie.  Most Democrats are people of faith; we just don’t believe that our faith (or anybody else’s) should be incorporated into laws and public policy (because religion is a private matter and all).

But that’s not what I wanted to write about.  I wanted to ask why the Christians Conservatives aren’t going apeshit about this photo:

Bushsaudiarabiatxgh20

That’s a picture of George Bush holding hands with Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Abdullah at the Crawford ranch.  That was taken today.

No, it’s not the holding hands that should cause concern (although they do make a cute couple).  It’s what Abdullah did last Friday:

Before boarding his flight to Crawford to meet with President Bush Monday, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah presided over the arrest of 40 Pakistani Christians on Friday. Their crime? The Pakistanis were caught praying in a private home in the capital Riyadh in violation of the state’s strictly enforced religious law that bans all non-Muslim worship.

Now, imagine that President Bill Clinton had met with, and walked hand-in-hand with, a Saudi Prince who had just arrested Christians for the "crime" of praying to Christ.  The Christian Right would have gone ballistic.  Like, Schiavo-ballistic.

But since it is George Bush and not Clinton, what do we hear from the Christian Right instead?

[Insert the sound of crickets chirping here]

Nope.  Not so much as a peep from Dobson or his brethren.  Mmmmmm.  IOKIYAR, right?  (See my post below)

This just proves that many Christians are willing pawns of the political right and/or they lack the courage of their supposed convictions.  Christian faith continues to be hi-jacked by the right wing in order to further their un-Christian political agenda, while the foolish illiterate and uninformed faithful just follow blindly.