There Is A Bigger Picture

I find myself duly surprised, in a very jarring way, when the normally knowledgeable Dave Budge grabs an issue and treats it as if it stands in a vacuum.  On those rare occasions that happens, I'm cynical enough to be suspicious and almost always assume that Dave has another agenda at play.   Those suspicions are somewhat supported by the consistency of Dave's inconsistency ... it almost always exhibits these characteristics:  a) by removing context from the issue, Congress looks bad; b)  there are appeals (weak or otherwise) to the popular sentiment that Congress *is* bad; and c) it usually involves Congress wasting time or money on things Dave doesn't favor.  The money part I definitely get; I believe we all share some of that hostility towards money being wasting on something that isn't our pet notion.  But it stands out in bold relief when Dave accuses Congress of wasting time on meaningless action; it's quite a contrast to his usual refrain that Congress is wasting time doing *anything*, and that we're all better off if Congress does nothing.

 

Dave was polite enough in this circumstance to wear his agenda right up front.  He was taking a very broad swipe at the insanity involved in the Strawman "Political Correctness".   I could focus  almost exclusively on how he's begging the question,  but I think it's more important to noodle out why he feels the need to hide the context of this action of Congress.  His initial question implores someone to give him context, which establishes for his readers that there isn't any.

What compels Congress to pass or even discuss meaningless crap like the move on MoveOn.org, the Rush flap and now, almost a century later, a resolution that determines the Ottoman Empire committed genocide?

I'll be first to admit; that's a hella good question, if one removes the assumptions that beg the question ("discuss meaningless crap").   What would compel  them, indeed?  I don't  know that there is a definitive answer, but I know that  there are several factors involved that go well beyond Dave's assumptions of 'political correctness'.    When I first read his post, I wanted to enumerate  some of those factors, especially since I've been keeping a wary eye on Turkey since we first committed to the Great Iraqi Crusade.  However, I'm not an adept policy wonk; that takes much more time than I have to devote to blogging.  Thankfully, there are others who do have the time.

Allow me to introduce Kossack DHinMN.  As if on queue, he presents a terrific exposition of the current policy struggles Turkey faces with itself, with Iraq, with the EU, and with us.  He (?) goes into a much greater degree of detail than is needed to answer Dave's question, and some of what he goes into *should* shake the certainty of those who think Turkey is our good secularist buddy in the Middle East that Congress is so abusing ... should, but I doubt it will.  I've noticed an odd propensity for those who think that Holocaust denial is akin to insanity and criminal behavior, seem to have blinders concerning this:

"Our (Turkey's) government regrets and condemns this decision (of the US Congressional committee). It is unacceptable that the Turkish nation has been accused of something that never happened in history," the government said.

But still, that's beside the point.  Dave's question has an answer, one that goes well deeper than Dave's obvious dislike of the people's representatives.  What is compelling the Congress who should do nothing, but will get harshed on for wasting time, is that our relationship with Turkey is at a fairly critical point.  They are using the Commander in Dunce's own flypaper argument to mess around in our private bailiwick of killen'.  This might lead to further destabilization of the region, and dammit, that's our job.  In other words, what compelled the resolution were the demands of foreign policy, and those who passed it on the House Foreign Relations Committee were (SURPRISE!) doing their jobs.

It can well be argued that what the House Foreign Relations Committee passed is a poor resolution that will hurt foreign policy.  It can be argued that the resolution is good foreign policy, and will get Turkey to back off and quit thinking they can tell the US what is true, and what to do.  The only argument that makes no sense, except in a vacuum, is that this resolution was "meaningless".

Comments

[Dave Budge]

First, re: my opening paragraph is a question. A question is not a logical argument by definition.

Second, re: my second paragraph is an assumption of Nan's motivations. It may be wrong but it is not circular inasmuch as it's not an argument - it's an opinion.

Third, re: my advice. The constitution clearly assigns foreign policy matters, except declarations of war, letters of marque and reprisal, and the approval of treaties, to the executive - not the Congress. So no, there weren't doing "their" job.

Fourth, if the assumption is that Congress needs to pass this kind of resolution to insure the Turks don't destabilize Iraq then they should be discussing things germane to the contemporary reality instead of sending some thinly veiled resolution that is "meaningless" to current foreign relations - with the exception that only bad can come from it - making it only meaningful in its potential harm.

Fifth, if you're making the argument that the resolution is valid because it came out of the Foreign Relations Committee then I think you must question if you are, in fact, begging the question.

Sixth: I'm not inconsistent as to my views of congress. I have said that I feel safer when their not in session but I have never said they don't have legitimate work to do.

ps - not every comment or observation can or should be boiled down to a syllogism as is your want. Sometimes dashed off tripe is just dashed off tripe. But if you want to make one of my post "in context" of its entirety, have at it - and good luck.

[Wulfgar]

My my.

First: Asking a question that 'Begs the question' is precisely a logical construct. You know this.

Second: You'd already established that you were begging the question so I had no issue with you furthering your silliness. Whatever. *Yawn*

Third: Whooo, that sounds impressive. Except that there is not one thing in the Constitution that prohibits the Congress from passing resolutions concerning foreign policy. What you've just said is that Congress 'has no right' to pass resolutions ... silly you. The Congress passes such resolutions because they do not have direct control over such policy. This is how it has always been and thankfully always will be. Come on, Dave. I want to see your argument that Resolutions passed by Congress have no impact or import on foreign or domestic policy. Oh do show us your Constitutional acumen ... I'm all a'twitter.

Fourth: Nice try, kitten. I argued nothing of the sort. *YOU* are the one who said this resolution was meaningless, and yet the Turks have responded to it. I wonder who might be full of shit, here ...

Let's be clear, Dave. You said, quite boldly, that the resolution was "meaningless". And now you weasel into the argument that the resolution might mean something bad. Kind of cowardly on your part, wouldn't you think? I sure would. I never postulate what the Turks will do, or what Bushco or the Congress will do. That's your domain, and I wouldn't think of messing with your wisdom in such matters ... heheehe.

Fifth: Are you dense? Of course the resolution is valid, as passed out of committee. There's no question to be begged! Are you just trying to confuse the ignorant (Andy?)? I'm really hoping to know?

Sixth: Finally, you might actually have a point. I'll apologize when I get a sense of your potent consistency ... hehehehe.

Dave:

not every comment or observation can or should be boiled down to a syllogism as is your want.

Why not? You hold me to a very high standard. I'll happily provide links (but you'll have to give me a little time.) Yes, Dave, everything, as you have required, should make sense. That lends itself to syllogisms ... the very logic that you and your folks accuse me of never following. And yet, I am to cut you slack for going off half-cocked in emotional turmoil ... (blog rage?) No. You've made your context clear in this case. I pointed it out (or at least the lack of said) in this case. You can always whine that I'm being unfair. Not gonna change a damn thing, Dave ... *Smooch*

[Dave Budge]

What you've just said is that Congress 'has no right' to pass resolutions ... silly you.

I've said no such thing. Nice try. I said it wasn't their job. Big difference.

There's also noting in the Constitution that prevents members from watching exotic Japanese porn either. So if the rationale over their job description is what they aren't specifically allowed to do is your argument you have a lot of ground to cover.

I also never asserted that it didn't have impact. You're making an argument that doesn't exist. It's meaningless because it has no power of action in its own construct - unlike a law. I never asserted that it didn't have consequences and, in fact, said it did.

Fifth: Are you dense? Of course the resolution is valid, as passed out of committee.

Don't get overly confused here. Read the above.

Your twisting in your shorts to make a point (trying to prove that you're smarter than me primarily), that making the resolution is the job of Congress. So why don't you do just that.

[Wulfgar]

I also never asserted that it didn't have impact. You're making an argument that doesn't exist. It's meaningless because it has no power of action in its own construct

Hmmm. Meaningless: Having no meaning or direction of purpose. Useless. Ineffectual. Right, Dave? Your word ...

The Budglet:

I also never asserted that it didn't have impact.

Yeah, yup you really did. Heheheh.

I never asserted that it didn't have consequences and, in fact, said it did.

Show what you know, kitten. You won't, will you? The only consequence you wanted to show folks was an ineffectual Congress.

Heheheh. No Dave. I'm not trying to prove that I'm smarter than you. That's your penis envy, not mine.

I'm just more rational that you. I've proven it time and again.

[Dave Budge]

Yep, your logical skills are legendary. I've learned my lesson.

[Wulfgar]

Pathetic self-righteous chest-beating. Last resort of the loser. You got a problem with my logic? Show it. After all, you're Dave Budge! You are all that and then some. So come on, Dave Budge All-That-And-Then-Some!, rise to the occasion. Or flee. Your choice, of course.

[Dave Budge]

Yep, I'm a loser and a big fucking asshole. I'm an intellectual pussy and an ignorant lightweight. Why would I want to argue with you? Please excuse me. I'm going off to fuck myself right now.

[Tony]

*pouring bleach into ears to remove image of Budge fucking himself*

Wulfgar, I admire you, you know that. I respect you too. We have never crossed swords, funny that way.
But for the life of me, I cannot understand why you bother with certain, ah, people.
There is no point to it.
None, zero, zip.
But it sure makes for funny reading.
*snicker*