timboerger.net

…As I Experienced It Through Twitter

I did not watch the State of the Union last night, though it sounded fascinating. Obama can speechify with the best of them and it’s hard to deny he is a talented speaker. I did follow the SOTU last night through Twitter, so let me reflect on that nugget through the use of bullet points.

1. I follow a bunch of smart asses on Twitter who are hilarious especially in the context of following a Presidential speech. Did I miss actual content of the speech, the red raw meat of vague governmental policy spoonfed to the base of each party? Of course I did. But a loss on “facts” was a net gain on laughs from people mocking the whole thing. Few people were spared the drawn rapiers of comedy. Is that a bad metaphor? Who cares, we’re moving on.
2. The whole mixing up the seating thing? Yeah, a nice gesture, but let’s see Congress actually talk to each other without donning their Impenetrable Shield of Rhetoric (in either Gingrichian or Carvillian flavors).
3. The Republican response? Well, at least he talked about some specific stuff. I always thought it was a bit unfair to have a response to the President’s speech, especially when the text of the speech is available to the other party beforehand, essentially granting the last word to the other party. But on the other hand, less people watch the response, so I guess there’s a trade off. It just doesn’t seem like the bully pulpit seems so big this way.
   • As pointed out in a Slate article today, the GOP hopes to cut spending but not touch the four top economic drains in the government (Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). Proposed cuts don’t even cover the cost of the extended Bush tax cut, so what the hell. Riddle me this, Batman. How the hell do you hope to make any progress on the budget by gutting everything else, leaving little left but an empty shell of a nation? Research? Education? Transportation? Doesn’t this seem awfully short-sighted to gut infrastructure and investment? I know, it’s tough to make big-boy decisions about stuff when the results won’t be seen for years and your constituents want everything for free NOW. But when can we expect a grown-up response to budget troubles?
4. Oh, Michelle Bachmann…what crazy fun we can expect from you this next two years. Love how you have assumed some sort of leadership mantle of the strangely unguided Tea Party Caucus. How you must be driving GOP leaders up a wall by causing such divisiveness in your own party. After all those years of getting all the Republicans to toe the line giving their party a legislative cudgel they constantly use on the Democrats, you flit in claiming the Tea Party tiara and hold your own response, confusing the GOP message and pissing off other Tea Party adherents and your own party. Fun!
   • On a side note, let me say how thrilled I am that she’s back in Congress throwing herself in front of every camera she can find and not walking up and down the streets of our good streets of the rest of America, getting kids to eat the crazy candy with her. As a recent father, I’m happy that she is locked up in D.C. where Fox, CNN and CSPAN can keep a good eye on her, letting me know it’s safe for my child to play outside.

As a final note, I’m not looking forward to the next two years. Presidential campaigns have already begun (*sigh*), chances are we’re going to have a lot of gridlock, little legislative movement, and lots of GOP crowing about how the economy is recovering–which was more the result of convenient timing rather than actual policy. I hope it’s a quiet two years, but I really doubt it.

People who know me best know that I like to keep abreast of things going on around me and I try to keep a pulse of what’s happening in the world. I listen to the news often. I don’t watch television news primarily because it is shallow and packaged, often relying on raw emotion to drive ratings in turn to drive revenue. I prefer to have my news less distilled, more fact driven. I’m more trusting of newspaper and web reporting (not blogs, mind you). I tend to trust sources such as the BBC as there is no stake they have in reporting US news and their world coverage is second to none.

I also read a lot of commentary. From editorials and commentary writers, I try to read a fair share of them. Although I freely admit to reading more articles from liberal commentators, I also read conservative voices. From all of those voices though, I expect a certain civility and also desire that their assertions be backed up either by fact, two sources or logical reasoning. I appreciate someone like George Will, who’s conservative argument can be at times compelling. (For a sampling of a particularily good and typical article, I thought this was a pretty good read.) I rarely agree with the man, but at the end of his articles, I understand his argument and civil discourse. On the other side of the fence is Arrianna Huffington, who’s recent trend of irrationality towards certain members of the media is disheartening at best. Her string of commentaries on her blog about Tim Russert started as a cause du jour and has twisted and turned into an embarrasing tirade which I’m not sure even she understands any more.

All of this really leads back to the local paper here, the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Over the course of the last couple of years, it has been the target of derision from right-wing pundits for being too liberal. It’s an interesting point of view, but one often taken by the right when anyone disagrees with their ideals. To somehow allieviate this attack, over the last year they have published the commentary from Katherine Kersten. At first, I approached her work with an open mind, but quickly grew skeptical. Her commentaries and their content made me question just how much work she does on her articles. Originally proclaimed that she would look at small town life and values, I find it interesting that she hardly ever truly talks about life in Minnesota, rather she finds a peripherally related local angle and applies it through the lens of the Republican National Committee, often doing nothing more than parrotting the weekly Republican talking points.

Her latest screed is contentious from the very first paragraph.

The University of Minnesota Law School rolls out the red carpet when recruiters from big law firms like Minneapolis’ Dorsey & Whitney come calling. Dorsey has represented suspected terrorists being detained at the military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The school also swings open its doors for firms that have represented people accused of being criminals, including allegedly corrupt corporate executives.

Apparently, however, the school has its limits. There’s at least one recruiter of legal talent it views as a pariah, an untouchable. Is it the Ku Klux Klan’s legal wing? Guess again. It’s your own American military, at a time when our nation is at war.

Somehow, and maybe I’m reading into this, I get the feeling that apparently that the only people who should get lawyers are outstanding corporate citizens. People detained in Guantanamo do not deserve representation reguardless of charge. Also those people who are criminals should not get to defend themselves in court. As I said, maybe I’m reading into it.

But her track record of previous articles has made me cause to wonder. Her stories rarely tell the entire story, and this one is much the same. One extremely narrow point of view linked to the recent ruling of the Solomon Amendment from the Supreme Court and it’s tenuous connection to the U of M. It’s really nothing more than trying to poke a finger in the eye of those who took a stand on principles. Myself, I thought the argument before the Supreme Court was doomed to lose, but I felt it needed to be said–and reading the ruling, I understand the court and why they ruled.

I told a friend recently that the Star Tribune could save money by finding out what the Republican talking points were for that week and publish them in their paper, effectively eliminating her position. She brings nothing to the paper. I find it amusing that she is supposed to create controversy and revels in the thought that she upsets people with differing values. I thought it was also quite revealing that on a particularly offensive article about Canada’s recent gay rights law, her follow up commentary was about civil discourse and hurtful words after a storm of response back from readers called into question her research, fact checking and overall tactics. My thought is that I believe that people who are commentators are there to advance dialogue, give people new ways of thinking on things, to add something to the great debate of life. Her articles are politically bereft of challenging ideas, filled with nothing but conformity to the party line and contempt for anyone who thinks otherwise.

In this day where civil debate is a lost art, there are those who feel that trumpeting above the general din is the best way to pound the populous into submission. Great debates are often drowned out by those who seem to champion non-issues, including a flag burning amendment, the Ten Commandments and the supposed war on Christmas. Instead of adding a voice that challenges ideas and provokes thought and debate, Kersten falls into the category of one who challenges ideals and provokes resentment.

We have enough “commentators” who shout to hear their own voice. Wouldn’t it be nice to have someone listen and reflect?