What happens when you assume...
I followed (as did many others) the saga last week of freshman Congressman Keith Ellison and his supposed desire to be sworn in on the Koran. Many people on the local (Jason Lewis) to the national (Dennis Prager) levels weighed in on the subject.
Many of those who did weigh in on the subject did so on the assumption that Congresspeople swear on any book - as the President does. It was that assumption that bit so many people in the posterior.
"Ellison will not use any book during the ceremony, Dave Colling, who served as the Minnesota Democrat's campaign manager, told Cybercast News Service. "Neither will any other member of the House," Colling added, since "no one has ever taken the oath of office in Congress with a Bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else."
Colling goes on to describe the swearing in ceremony - a ceremony that is done en masse. Then, if the Congressperson is so inclined, he/she may choose to have his/her picture taken with the Speaker and it is then that the Bible may be present, but again that is at the Congresspersons' choice!
Much of the ado about this subject came about because certain "reputable" news agencies reported that Congressman-elect Ellison "will be sworn be sworn in" on the Koran and not on the Bible. Had said news agency really done their due diligence and ASKED the Congressman-elect's office, they may have saved us all a lot of idle speculation.
While the majority of the brouhaha was bourne out of speculation and mis-information, this op-ed by the Star Tribune was bourne out of pure bias and spite.
"You've gotta hand it to Keith Ellison, Minneapolis' congressman-elect: He's not even in the House yet, and he's got wingnuts falling out of the trees on their empty heads. "
Anytime your argument is based on namecalling (empty headed "wingnuts") you have automatically ceded your point to your opposition. It is a shame that the Star Tribune has descended into name calling. They used to be a "reputable" news source. However, when you have editorial writers who are suspended after they plagerize editorials and a readers representative who tries to excuse it, you should know that you are no longer a reputable news source.
Many of those who did weigh in on the subject did so on the assumption that Congresspeople swear on any book - as the President does. It was that assumption that bit so many people in the posterior.
"Ellison will not use any book during the ceremony, Dave Colling, who served as the Minnesota Democrat's campaign manager, told Cybercast News Service. "Neither will any other member of the House," Colling added, since "no one has ever taken the oath of office in Congress with a Bible, a Koran, a Torah or anything else."
Colling goes on to describe the swearing in ceremony - a ceremony that is done en masse. Then, if the Congressperson is so inclined, he/she may choose to have his/her picture taken with the Speaker and it is then that the Bible may be present, but again that is at the Congresspersons' choice!
Much of the ado about this subject came about because certain "reputable" news agencies reported that Congressman-elect Ellison "will be sworn be sworn in" on the Koran and not on the Bible. Had said news agency really done their due diligence and ASKED the Congressman-elect's office, they may have saved us all a lot of idle speculation.
While the majority of the brouhaha was bourne out of speculation and mis-information, this op-ed by the Star Tribune was bourne out of pure bias and spite.
"You've gotta hand it to Keith Ellison, Minneapolis' congressman-elect: He's not even in the House yet, and he's got wingnuts falling out of the trees on their empty heads. "
Anytime your argument is based on namecalling (empty headed "wingnuts") you have automatically ceded your point to your opposition. It is a shame that the Star Tribune has descended into name calling. They used to be a "reputable" news source. However, when you have editorial writers who are suspended after they plagerize editorials and a readers representative who tries to excuse it, you should know that you are no longer a reputable news source.
posted by The Lady Logician at
6:49 AM
4 Comments:
The wingnut label sure does fit Prager. He and others were engaged in hysterics about Ellison's election and claiming that he would be sworn in on the Koran. Prager and other right-wing extremists were the ones doing the assuming here.
But, assuming you're truly against namecalling and false assumptions, you must really dislike people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Funny how I haven't seen you criticize either of them!
By
Anonymous, at 2:43 PM
Prager is hardly a wingnut, nor does he call people names.
He is an old school traditonalist who wants to keep the traditions in place that created this great Nation. Unlike Liberals and Muslims who want to tear down those traditions and remake the United States into something else.
By
Unknown, at 12:52 PM
Skipper
Can you provide one instance where Mr. Prager has engaged in name-calling in either his commentary or on his radio program? Somehow I doubt that you can.
Regarding Ms. Coulter, I rarely read her columns as I do not appreciate her commentary. Regarding Mr. Limbaugh when he does engage in "namecalling" it is usually descriptive of an activity ie femi-nazis and envirowackos. Many times in this blog I have taken the feminists to tasks for ignoring their supposed agenda (womens rights) for political agenda. In that, they deserve ridicule because they have made a mockery of their cause. Ditto extremist environmentalists and animal righs extremists. Any time you do harm to a worthy cause, you leave yourself open.
By
The Lady Logician, at 3:40 PM
Let's talk about the Bill of Rights Skipper. Do you agree that First Amendment guaranteed free speech applies to EVERYONE? Or do you only support free speech for those who agree with you? What about the 2nd Amendment? What about the 10th Amendment (States Rights)? Or do you only support those rights that apply to your belief system?
By
The Lady Logician, at 3:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home