19

Sep

Welcome to The Writer’s Paradox

About the Author…

I’m a 27-year-old who dreams of becoming a famous writer, even if alleged rumors of “There’s NO MONEY in it!” are true. I’m addicted to books, journals, and essays that change my opinion about something, a notion that astounds my friends constantly — “Wait, you read…for fun?” I get excited about used bookstores, my 1930’s typewriter, and my ever-expanding unread stack of non-fiction anthologies. I watches my bookcase closer than my bank account, and believe perfecting a blog post edit with a cup of coffee at dawn is as near to heaven as anything else.

A self-professed political junkie, I’m a social/fiscal progressive at heart, but a “listening conservative” when I attend family parties on Long Island. Preferring root canals to reactionary thinking, I’m much more comfortable in rational data-driven thought. I’ve argued about Citizens United, the Stimulus’ impact on green energy, and gerrymandering after a few drinks at happy hour. I’ve attended political lectures that have bored others to sleep, follow more think tanks on Twitter than friends, and frequently read The Federalist Papers in the corner booth at the local diner.

I can’t stand the self-destruction of mainstream political journalism, and think cable news debates are “WWF matches minus the pyrotechnics.” I doesn’t believe Glenn Beck means any of the things he says, and cringe when I see liberal pundits acting tough. I once drafted a petition urging CNN to “grow a pair” and cover campaign finance, corporate media ownership, and Congressional procedure abuses, but was unsure CNN read anything other than Twitter feeds these days.

About the Blog…

The Writer’s Paradox is a blog dedicated to one progressive author’s take on politics, philosophy and more…

You’ll also have to make due with the book reviews.

13 years ago Short URL Comments

Uncategorized

15

Mar

Hypocrisy and Hope – The Portman Flip

In case you missed it…

Rob Portman, a Senator from Ohio, made news on Friday by recanting his anti-gay stance in lieu of his son coming out as gay.

From Mr. Portman himself:

At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.

What to think of it?

First and foremost, two claps for Senator Portman.

There are plenty of powerful actors in Washington who, either through stubbornness, ignorance, or a deliberate (and dangerous) combination of both, refuse to admit any policy short-comings (Just listen to the Iraq hawks on Iran.)

And any time an obstacle for equal rights is removed, even if just one Senator’s opinion, it’s an important and valued occasion.

But after reading Senator Portman’s rationale for conversion, you can see why some gay advocates may be even more frustrated after today’s news, in particular about what the Senator realizes now, but could not perceive just days before: Continue reading →

13 years ago Short URL Comments

Washington Decoded

/////////

09

Mar

In Defense of Sen. Paul’s Filibuster (Again)

As previously stated, Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster was an exercise worth praising. Raising awareness about a dormant issue — one essential to our national well-being — is vitally important no matter how or why it’s achieved. One can (and I’d argue, should) disagree with Sen. Paul on many other issues, including civil rights and women’s rights. But his actions on the Senate floor last week should not be one of them.

David Frum, a leading conservative columnist that I follow regularly, doesn’t agree.

“Paul’s filibuster ostensibly dealt only with a very remote hypothetical contingency: targeted killings on American soil of Americans who present no imminent threat to national security. Paul insisted that all the harder questions be taken off the table. He had (he said) no issue with a targeted killing on American soil of an American who did present an imminent threat. He avoided the issue of the targeted killings of Americans outside the United States – i.e., the actual real-world problem at hand.”  (Read full)

And from Twitter:

Screen Shot 2013-03-08 at 9.08.07 PM

The conservative columnist’s main point, in his stance against Sen. Paul, is this:

By avoiding the “real” issues about drone strikes, Sen. Paul is only dragging the conversation into the extreme hypothetical, an abstract wasteland of never-ending possibilities, like, according to Frum, the doomsday scenario of a President killing an innocent American.

That stuff’s for Hollywood and not the Senate floor, he wants us to believe.

But the truth is, any knowledge of America’s decade-long quagmire in the Middle East proves we are much closer to this exaggerated reality than Frum (or any of us) would like to believe. Continue reading →

13 years ago Short URL Comments

Washington Decoded

/////////

06

Mar

Filibusters Say the Darndest Things

Two months ago, the filibuster was hated more than Tierra on the Bachelor.

Today, it’s a reminder of how — if used properly — it can enhance our democracy and give voice to a desperately-needed minority opinion.

In protest of John Brennan’s nomination to run the CIA, Senator Rand Paul took to the Senate floor this afternoon to voice his objection. Using a technique known as the “talking filibuster,” Paul is literally stalling the process of nomination by talking nonstop. Like 11 hours straight (with some help from fellow Senators for momentary breaks).

And you thought Braveheart on TNT was long.

The filibuster itself is a Senate tradition of obstructing legislation. A Senator is granted unlimited time to debate before a vote, and if he chooses to, can technically debate on the floor indefinitely, or “filibuster”. It’s like pulling the fire alarm to avoid taking a final exam and doing it over and over again. Except on Capitol Hill, it’s applauded.

This method of stalling has been traditionally used with the aim of either a) garnering attention to an overlooked or defeated opinion; or b) jamming up the legislative process so badly everyone else says “Oh the hell with it, you win” and removes the vote or legislation from the floor. Sixty votes can end a filibuster — a motion called “cloture”, or as the cooler Senators say “a rock to your scissors” — but is usually hard to gather due to partisan lines.

As this post is being written, Sen. Paul is still at it, talking away to probably just the interns left to clean up after everyone’s gone home.

But make no mistake, Sen. Paul’s filibuster today is important and vital to our democracy for one major reason: Continue reading →

13 years ago Short URL Comments

Washington Decoded

/////////

06

Mar

When Life Gives You Lemons…

Or an obstructionist political party clutching ignorant fanaticism as a dying last gasp to maintain a dwindling relevance within an electorate culturally passing them by…

You’ve got to find the lemonade somewhere.

How’s this:

“A week from now, a dramatic new federal policy is set to go into effect that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more.”

And this…

“…we can’t cut our way to prosperity.”

And this…

“It’s going to mean hundreds of thousands of jobs lost…That is real. We’re not making that up.  That’s not a scare tactic, that’s a fact.”

The sweet irony of these quotes?

They’re not from a Democrat. Continue reading →

13 years ago Short URL Comments

Washington Decoded

///////

05

Mar

The Current (Sad) State of Affairs

Great quote from Noam Scheiber’s profile of John Boehner in The New Republic (read full).

“Here is the soul-crushing reality that Boehner wakes up to every morning, before he lights up a Camel 99 and knots his power tie: The Democratic Party is much more popular than the GOP, and Barack Obama has far higher approval ratings than Republican leaders in Washington. When it comes to the budget—the key battleground in the partisan skirmishing of the last two years—the American people overwhelmingly favor Obama’s approach (paring the deficit through a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts) over the Republicans’ (cutting spending only). And the president’s bully pulpit gives him a virtually limitless ability to highlight the programs that Republican cuts would endanger.

Oh, and there’s one other hitch for Boehner: Many of his 232 House Republicans refuse to acknowledge almost any of this, believing the only plausible explanation for the failure to enact their agenda is a lack of courage on the part of their leaders, of whom they are chronically suspicious. How, then, has Boehner managed to keep his job? You could spend months reading political science journals and come up with no better answer than this: The man gets crazy people.”

Trying to summarize the dysfunction of the GOP can drive a writer mad, but this comes pound-for-pound the closest and clearest I’ve seen in a while as Noam’s summary nails the current chaotic state of Boehner’s job.

There are, however, along with the aforementioned, a few more things to remember about the crazies within the Republican Party… Continue reading →

14 years ago Short URL Comments

Washington Decoded

///////////

Blog at WordPress.com.