On Function, Ethic, and Politics

On Function, Ethic, and Politics


The summary from Manu Raju↱ explains that, "Several Republicans in the House have skipped Friday's votes and enlisted their colleagues to vote on their behalf, signing letters saying they couldn't attend 'due to the ongoing public health emergency.'" And depending on one's priorities, the subsequent tweet-thread names Reps. Budd (NC-13), Cawthorn (NC-11) Gaetz (FL-1), and Gosar (AZ-4); it also observes that this is a regular process, and that Republicans once tried to stop this practice by suing Congress in court. But one thing stands out: Process is process, and fair is fair, right? Sure, but depending on one's priorities, it might also be worth observing that, despite the ongoing public health emergency, "those members are scheduled to be at CPAC".

Or, to summarize↱:


The CNN↱ article, at this point, is pretty much what Raju tweets, but includes his colleagues in the byline.


Actually, the number is up to thirteen, per Rebecca Kaplan↱ of CBS News.


Sometimes questions of period and context arise, but one aspect of the American conservative political ethic that seems to run pretty constant in recent decades is its disdain for context or consistency. Compared to decades of conservative bawling about accountability, prophesying bad governance, this really is a small detail in passing, but there is actually a difference between the idea of an old joke about how to know when politicians are lying, and actually living the joke.

Here is something: It should sound silly to note that these should never try to duck their opposition to the $1.9T Covid relief bill by saying they never actually voted against it. And I hope it always sounds silly, becuase there really ought to be no chance that any of them would ever parse that distinction.

That is, sure they're documentably liars in an official context, but, hey, they're American conservatives, so what does dishonesty have to do with anything? I mean, right?
____________________

Notes:

@mkraju. "NEWS: Several Republicans in the House have skipped Friday's votes and enlisted their colleagues to vote on their behalf, signing letters saying they couldn't attend 'due to the ongoing public health emergency.' But those members are scheduled to be at CPAC". Twitter. (Thread) 26 February 2021. Twitter.com. 26 February 2021. https://bit.ly/3sBjc97

@RebeccaRKaplan. "13 House Republicans who are appearing at CPAC in Orlando Friday, Saturday and Sunday have active proxy voting requests with the House Clerk's office saying they can't attend votes due to the pandemic. Among the votes they will miss tonight: one on the COVID relief bill." Twitter. 26 February 2021. Twitter.com. https://bit.ly/3kqIkfM

Bash, Dana, Manu Raju, Daniella Diaz, and Lauren Fox. "Several Republicans tell House they can't attend votes due to 'public health emergency.' They're slated to be at CPAC." CNN. 26 February 2021. CNN.com. 26 February 2021. http://cnn.it/2ZWJNRv

Hey, when you're right, you're right. To the one, it's a ridiculous stunt. To the other it doesn't accomplish anything.

It's kind of a "nothing burger" in that it isn't important and the Republican Party has shown itself to be a joke, long before the politician/lips moving joke but we can use all the threads here that we can get, amiright!

To wit, I don't know how much discussion we will get here as there isn't much to discus just 'twix you and I but 'twas one in a long line of ridiculous political stunts. Trump for 2024 anyone?

Per Hannah Gais↱ of SPLC:


To be clear, the Distinguished Gentleman from Arizona Four cannot attend his duties at the U.S. Capitol because of an ongoing public health emergency, but he can risk his life for the white nationalist political rally.
____________________

Notes:

@hannahgais. "Fuentes just announced that Rep. Paul Gosar is AFPAC's 'secret' speaker. Meaning: a current congressman is addressing a group of white nationalists tonight". Twitter. 26 February 2021. Twitter.com. 26 February 2021. https://bit.ly/3bEyCm2

Justin Amash↱, formerly a Republican representing Michigan Three, observes:


Imagine when he hears about Gosar↱.


Of course, Amash is a Libertarian, these days. Still, as Hannah Gais↱ reported, last month:


CPAC is as CPAC will, but the idea of a sitting member of Congress pandering to white nationalists tells us something about the condition of congressional Republicans.
____________________

Notes:

@hannahgais. "Fuentes just announced that Rep. Paul Gosar is AFPAC's 'secret' speaker. Meaning: a current congressman is addressing a group of white nationalists tonight". Twitter. 26 February 2021. Twitter.com. 26 February 2021. https://bit.ly/3bEyCm2

@justinamash. "Imagine claiming proxy voting is unconstitutional but then utilizing proxy voting so you can attend CPAC under false pretenses." Twitter. 26 February 2021. Twitter.com. 26 February 2021. https://bit.ly/37TX55J

Gais, Hannah. "Meet the White Nationalist Organizer Who Spewed Hate Against Lawmakers ". Hatewatch. 19 January 2021. SPLCenter.org. 26 February 2021. http://bit.ly/3r67xik

The headline, from Forbes: "GOP's Gosar Skipped Covid-19 Aid Vote To Speak At Conference With Ties To White Nationalism". Their topline lede:


According to the report, Gosar's letter, dated Friday, explained, "I continue to be unable to physically attend proceedings in the House Chamber due to the ongoing public health emergency." Nonetheless:


It doesn't seem much of a denunciation. Mediaite reports:


Speaking of which, actually seeing the CPAC stage is its own moment in wondering what the hell is wrong with American conservatives. We get that they're trolling everyone else, and all that, but at some point we must take a moment to consider the prospect that if the only thing they need to do in order to be viewed as decent people is not be awful, they really might not be able to do it.
____________________

Notes:

Beer, Tommy. "GOP's Gosar Skipped Covid-19 Aid Vote To Speak At Conference With Ties To White Nationalism". Forbes. 27 February 2021. Forbes.com. 27 February 2021. http://bit.ly/30ai8gl

Petrizzo, Zachary. "GOP Congressman Speaks at CPAC The Day After Addressing White Nationalist Conference". Mediaite. 27 February 2021. Mediaite.com. 27 February 2021. http://bit.ly/30ai8gl

Perhaps an analogy is in order.

We don't want the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We try every means at our disposal to keep especially unstable, aggressive, or expansionist governments from acquiring them. But once they have, we have no choice but to stock up as a retaliatory deterrent. Same goes for any opponent in any arena. We fight against improper rule changes, like Reid's nuclear option for federal appointments, but once that fight fails, we are forced to utilize it lest we handicap ourselves. If you think Republicans should just fall on the sword of the Democrat's making, you're living outside of all reality. Similarly, if Democrats get away with changing the rules on proxy votes, why would any Republicans then hamstring themselves by not taking advantage of it? Doing so would be just plain stupid. And it doesn't matter why they're utilizing it. That's just Democrats whining about their own rule change being used against them, just like they did about the nuclear option. Trying to uselessly shame Republicans out of taking advantage of something Democrats created. And there are also plenty of wacky organic, non-GMO, leftists who disingenuously use a religious exemption to avoid vaccines.

Vociferous said:

Similarly, if Democrats get away with changing the rules on proxy votes, why would any Republicans then hamstring themselves by not taking advantage of it? Doing so would be just plain stupid.

Click to expand...

The idea that not lying would be "just plain stupid" tells us what we need to know about the low ethic that would justify such behavior.

Tiassa said:

The idea that not lying would be "just plain stupid" tells us what we need to know about the low ethic that would justify such behavior.

Click to expand...

Considering they went to the very publicly covered CPAC, I really shouldn't have to explain to you the difference between lying and overtly making a mockery of something.

Of lying and mockery—

Vociferous said:

Considering they went to the very publicly covered CPAC, I really shouldn't have to explain to you the difference between lying and overtly making a mockery of something.

Click to expand...

—and inasmuch as you're already aware the other does not preclude the one, we once again come back to the underlying low ethic.

(Although the subsequent episode with Fuentes trying to pick a fight at CPAC is apropos beyond anything I could have imagined.)

Tiassa said:

Of lying and mockery—

—and inasmuch as you're already aware the other does not preclude the one, we once again come back to the underlying low ethic.

Click to expand...

So apparently I do need to explain to you the difference between lying and mockery. While lying certainly can be a part of parody, such lying has zero ethical implications. Too bad some people cannot recognize the clear mockery of citing "health emergency" to use a proxy vote they fought against only to attend a very public, media covered, and large gathering. And now those people have to shoehorn in some fictitious moral failing to justify their preexisting animus.

(Although the subsequent episode with Fuentes trying to pick a fight at CPAC is apropos beyond anything I could have imagined.)

Click to expand...

Fuentes was at CPAC? Can you cite a source, or are you conflating CPAC with AFPAC?

Vociferous said:

While lying certainly can be a part of parody, such lying has zero ethical implications.

Click to expand...

Yes, we understand that for Republicans, lying to the Clerk of the House of Representatives has zero ethical implications. This aspect of the conservative ethic is hardly surprising.

Fuentes was at CPAC? Can you cite a source, or are you conflating CPAC with AFPAC?

Click to expand...

(sigh)

Via Orlando Weekly↱:


It's also worth noting video footage↱ from that performance outside CPAC includes Fuentes' supporters jeering police, "All cops are faggots."
____________________

Notes:

@OrlandoWeekly. "Our photog @davedeckerphoto caught Nick Fuentes at #CPAC, stumping for @AmericaFirstPAC: 'At AFPAC, we don't wear masks. At AFPAC, we don't have homosexuals speaking on stage." Twitter. 27 February 2021. Twitter.com. 1 March 2021. https://bit.ly/3b4Ddic

Bryce Young, Jessica. "Video: Smarmy neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes gets kicked out of CPAC, brags AFPAC doesn't 'have homosexuals speaking on the stage'". Orlando Weekly. 27 February 2021. OrlandoWeekly.com. 1 March 2021. https://bit.ly/3b4Ddic

Tiassa said:

Yes, we understand that for Republicans, lying to the Clerk of the House of Representatives has zero ethical implications. This aspect of the conservative ethic is hardly surprising.

Click to expand...

Again, you're demonstrating your complete conflation of lying and mockery. Moral relativists and hypocrites talking about ethics would be laughable if the obvious lack of self-awareness weren't so sad.

Vociferous said:

Again, you're demonstrating your complete conflation of lying and mockery

Click to expand...

What, you're down to make-believe?

It is notable, as you turn to nonsensical self-gratification, that what you've said so far does not actually dispute the propositon of the low ethic that would justify such behavior, but, rather, provides an example.

Tiassa said:

What, you're down to make-believe?

Click to expand...

Ah. from conflation to pure nonsense, I see. Make believe what? That someone who disagrees with something would thumb their nose at it by using the exact same excuse used to justify it? No, that's not lying. That's just transparent mockery to anyone with an ounce of rational sense.

It is notable, as you turn to nonsensical self-gratification, that what you've said so far does not actually dispute the propositon of the low ethic that would justify such behavior, but, rather, provides an example.

Click to expand...

Already projecting, huh? Oh well, I didn't expect any rational argument from you.

Vociferous said:

Perhaps an analogy is in order.

We don't want the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We try every means at our disposal to keep especially unstable, aggressive, or expansionist governments from acquiring them. But once they have, we have no choice but to stock up as a retaliatory deterrent. Same goes for any opponent in any arena. We fight against improper rule changes, like Reid's nuclear option for federal appointments, but once that fight fails, we are forced to utilize it lest we handicap ourselves. If you think Republicans should just fall on the sword of the Democrat's making, you're living outside of all reality. Similarly, if Democrats get away with changing the rules on proxy votes, why would any Republicans then hamstring themselves by not taking advantage of it? Doing so would be just plain stupid. And it doesn't matter why they're utilizing it. That's just Democrats whining about their own rule change being used against them, just like they did about the nuclear option. Trying to uselessly shame Republicans out of taking advantage of something Democrats created. And there are also plenty of wacky organic, non-GMO, leftists who disingenuously use a religious exemption to avoid vaccines.

Click to expand...

i see your back. glad to see your still alive i was worried maybe you had covid and passed. sad to see your still lying your ass of and pretending the democrats are to blame for your ideologies crimes though

pjdude1219 said:

i see your back. glad to see your still alive i was worried maybe you had covid and passed. sad to see your still lying your ass of and pretending the democrats are to blame for your ideologies crimes though

Click to expand...

I see you still can't manage to capitalize, spell simple words like "you're" or "off" , or refrain from projecting. But hey, thanks for so quickly reminding me why you're on ignore. You offer zero rational arguments, just as I vaguely remember. Nah, no Covid, just got bored with this echo chamber. Still looks pretty boring.

Vociferous said:

Still looks pretty boring.

Click to expand...

You could always try contributing something useful. You know, something better than ignorance, conspiracism, and make-believe.

Well, in theory, as the saying goes. Three years in, sure, we believe you.

Vociferous said:

Make believe what? That someone who disagrees with something would thumb their nose at it by using the exact same excuse used to justify it?

Click to expand...

No. This would be easier if you were able to follow what is, at this point, a fairly straightforward back and forth.

The point about "complete conflation"↑ is a straw man, a convenient idol to pretend you're responding to.

Again, the idea that not lying would be "just plain stupid"↑ tells us what we need to know about the low ethic that would justify such behavior.

Filing a falsely-attested document with the Clerk of the House of Representatives might be some manner of protest or mockery, but it is still a lie. It is not surprising that you need certain lies to have "zero ethical implications"↑, as it provides an example of the low ethic that would justify such behavior.

Remember, what happens in Congress generally stays in Congress, and while cracking wise to a reporter or talk show host is formally different from lying in an official government document, it is unlikely the offending members will face any serious consequences. The larger question has to do with function, ethic, and politics. Or, such as it is, the low conservative ethic that would justify such behavior.


There is actually something going on here that does puzzle me about conservative behavior, ethic, principle, and thought. And, I don't know, maybe for all conservatives complain about liberals, progressives, and the left, they don't actually know what they're complaining about because they don't actually pay attention to what people are telling them.

Given what some conservatives, including Beltway politicians, consider radically leftward, it easily stands out when a conservative argument needs liberals, progressives, and leftists to be even more tightly bound than the conservatives themselves.

To the other, it does make a certain amount of sense, but that's a longer digression reaching back to censorship disputes of the prior century. Short form: Conservatives have been telling other people what those folks think for decades.

Nonetheless, at no point does the fact that something is art actually change what it is. One can easily expound on why Christians are wrong to object to Piss Christ, but it doesn't change the fact of what the artwork is. What changes it so fundamentally is if it is actually something else to begin with. So, even if it really does work out to be a brilliant piece of art, it's still a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine. Unless, of course, it isn't, but the metalayering, in part because it is a photograph of a crucifix, becomes extraordinary in that case.

Out at some morbid rim we can find particular assertions of murder as art, and in this, no, we're not talking about crime dramas on television, action films, or gorgeously-spun literature. But sometimes murder is art, because that is how a killer went about it, and nothing about the fact that a particular murder is an artistic statement changes the fact that it is murder.

Again, what changes the fact of murder would be that it isn't murder. A depiction of murder in recognized dramatic performance is not an actual murder.

And while cable-news and internet-channel political discourse is not quite the same as the difference between an actual confession and an actor reciting a confession in a dramatic performance, it's also true that we already expect spin; a politician lying to a cable news host is largely regarded as some manner of performance art.

Compared to this, falsely attesting in a formal government document might well be intended as some manner of performance—e.g., mockery—but it is still an official act of lying.

It's not quite the Eighties all over again, but conservative difficulty discerning functional differences 'twixt art and reality hasn't changed much over the course of decades.

Conservatives used to tell us government doesn't work, and, much like we were warned, they got elected and tried to prove it; now, here we are, and this is what they're down to.

Tiassa said:

Still looks pretty boring.

Click to expand...

You could always try contributing something useful. You know, something better than ignorance, conspiracism, and make-believe.

Click to expand...

Since you couldn't comprehend a very simple analogy, it strains credulity that you could find anything that fails to feed your existing bias a useful contribution. Seeing as I've already explained your ignorance, haven't ever advocated any conspiracies, and refuted your wholly unsupported accusation of make-believe, we can only assume this is your usual projection/deflection.

Well, in theory, as the saying goes. Three years in, sure, we believe you.

Click to expand...

Three years, with several absences, the last spanning 6 months. And you're still making all your old, baseless, and out of touch assumptions, with only your own leftist bias (and leftist source games of telephone) in lieu of any substantial reasoning at all. And you're still trying to cover up that complete lack of intellectual rigor with sheer volume.

Make believe what? That someone who disagrees with something would thumb their nose at it by using the exact same excuse used to justify it? No, that's not lying. That's just transparent mockery to anyone with an ounce of rational sense.

Click to expand...

No. This would be easier if you were able to follow what is, at this point, a fairly straightforward back and forth.

Click to expand...

Your usual meaningless and unsubstantiated swipe, typically originating from your complete inability to comprehend anyone outside of your personal echo chamber.

The point about "complete conflation"↑ is a straw man, a convenient idol to pretend you're responding to.

Click to expand...

Claiming it a fallacy requires you actually show how, otherwise it's a meaningless and lazy deflection.
IOW, you have to demonstrate that you do actually know the difference between lies and mockery. If anything, you've only doubled down on that conflation.

Again, the idea that not lying would be "just plain stupid"↑ tells us what we need to know about the low ethic that would justify such behavior.

Click to expand...

Mashing together different out of context quotes to fabricate justification for an ad hominem is not intellectually honest nor challenging. Your constant diet of leftist sources has taught you their simpleton tactics though. Don't worry, I'll get bored again soon and leave you to your usual simpleton audience.

Filing a falsely-attested document with the Clerk of the House of Representatives might be some manner of protest or mockery, but it is still a lie. It is not surprising that you need certain lies to have "zero ethical implications"↑, as it provides an example of the low ethic that would justify such behavior.

Click to expand...

Okay, then tell me. Where in the actual House Resolution for proxy voting is ANY mention of requiring ANY excuse or reason for the absence whatsoever? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/965/text
If it's not there, it neither matters nor is it in any sense attested to. It's just a given, as the H.R. only applies during a designated period of "public health emergency".
And your suddenly puritanism against any and all lies, no matter the insignificance, is transparently self-serving.

Remember, what happens in Congress generally stays in Congress, and while cracking wise to a reporter or talk show host is formally different from lying in an official government document, it is unlikely the offending members will face any serious consequences. The larger question has to do with function, ethic, and politics. Or, such as it is, the low conservative ethic that would justify such behavior.

Click to expand...

Again, no requirement for a reason in the H.R.. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/965/text
So no possible legal or political grounds for any "serious consequences" whatsoever. You're just making up/regurgitating bullshit because your clickbait leftist sources are much more interested in stoking partisan division than actually educating you on the reality.
The low ethics is Democrats passing a resolution that they want reserved for their own use, and trying to use fair play as a political cudgel. You know, nothing new.

There is actually something going on here that does puzzle me about conservative behavior, ethic, principle, and thought. And, I don't know, maybe for all conservatives complain about liberals, progressives, and the left, they don't actually know what they're complaining about because they don't actually pay attention to what people are telling them.

Click to expand...

Considering how much you patently refuse to accept any reasons or explanation a conservative gives you, it's really no wonder at all that you remain so clueless. The evidence is all right here, in this short thread. You're still only projecting and deflecting, as studies have proven conservatives understand much more about the left than vice versa.

Given what some conservatives, including Beltway politicians, consider radically leftward, it easily stands out when a conservative argument needs liberals, progressives, and leftists to be even more tightly bound than the conservatives themselves.

Click to expand...

And your noise has overtaken your signal. Do you have any examples of conservatives holding the left to higher standards than themselves? No, just making shit up, huh?

To the other, it does make a certain amount of sense, but that's a longer digression reaching back to censorship disputes of the prior century. Short form: Conservatives have been telling other people what those folks think for decades.

Click to expand...

All noise.

Nonetheless, at no point does the fact that something is art actually change what it is. One can easily expound on why Christians are wrong to object to Piss Christ, but it doesn't change the fact of what the artwork is. What changes it so fundamentally is if it is actually something else to begin with. So, even if it really does work out to be a brilliant piece of art, it's still a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine. Unless, of course, it isn't, but the metalayering, in part because it is a photograph of a crucifix, becomes extraordinary in that case.

Click to expand...

Beat them weeds.

Out at some morbid rim we can find particular assertions of murder as art, and in this, no, we're not talking about crime dramas on television, action films, or gorgeously-spun literature. But sometimes murder is art, because that is how a killer went about it, and nothing about the fact that a particular murder is an artistic statement changes the fact that it is murder.

Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised to have a leftist who whines about lying goes on to claim that "sometimes murder is art"?
The stunningly hypocritical disproportionality is hard to exaggerate.

And while cable-news and internet-channel political discourse is not quite the same as the difference between an actual confession and an actor reciting a confession in a dramatic performance, it's also true that we already expect spin; a politician lying to a cable news host is largely regarded as some manner of performance art.

Click to expand...

Too bad you're completely unaware of the spin you regularly ingest and regurgitate.

Compared to this, falsely attesting in a formal government document might well be intended as some manner of performance—e.g., mockery—but it is still an official act of lying.

Click to expand...

Again, no requirement for a reason in the H.R.. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/965/text
No "official act of lying". Please learn how to find and read original sources, so clickbait doesn't make a fool of you.

Crickets.

Vociferous said:

Crickets

Click to expand...

Sorry, I got distracted by a coffeepot while arguing with myself whether to use the link to the law schol archive of the U.S. Code, or the one from the House of Representatives that will eventually break for procedural reasons.

I'll finish up the last couple sentences and get right on it for you.


And here we go. Sorry to keep you waiting.

Vociferous said:

Okay, then tell me. Where in the actual House Resolution for proxy voting is ANY mention of requiring ANY excuse or reason for the absence whatsoever? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/965/text
If it's not there, it neither matters nor is it in any sense attested to. It's just a given, as the H.R. only applies during a designated period of "public health emergency".
And your suddenly puritanism against any and all lies, no matter the insignificance, is transparently self-serving.

Click to expand...

Let us consider the range of your question: "Where in the actual House Resolution for proxy voting …?" This is actually a fallacious proposition; 18 USC 47, § 1001(c)(1)↱ applies.


Seriously, how did you not know it's a crime to lie to the government in formal and affecting communications? Why would you think the lack of a particular clause in authorizing resolution would exempt the rule from laws against lying to the government?

Claiming it a fallacy requires you actually show how, otherwise it's a meaningless and lazy deflection.
IOW, you have to demonstrate that you do actually know the difference between lies and mockery. If anything, you've only doubled down on that conflation.

Click to expand...

It's problematic to describe as "complete conflation"↑ an argument asserting differences↑ between the elements described as conflated.

No, really, it's not tricky. To the other—

Considering how much you patently refuse to accept any reasons or explanation a conservative gives you, it's really no wonder at all that you remain so clueless. The evidence is all right here, in this short thread. You're still only projecting and deflecting, as studies have proven conservatives understand much more about the left than vice versa.

†​

And your noise has overtaken your signal. Do you have any examples of conservatives holding the left to higher standards than themselves? No, just making shit up, huh?

†​

All noise.

†​

Beat them weeds.

Click to expand...

—it's true, after all this time—

Vociferous said:

Why am I not surprised to have a leftist who whines about lying goes on to claim that "sometimes murder is art"?
The stunningly hypocritical disproportionality is hard to exaggerate.

†​

Too bad you're completely unaware of the spin you regularly ingest and regurgitate.

Click to expand...

—it is easy enough to believe you just aren't capable of doing any better than this. Really, what is the point of making any effort to explain anything to you when it all just flies so far over your head?

I mean, really:

Again, no requirement for a reason in the H.R. … No "official act of lying". Please learn how to find and read original sources, so clickbait doesn't make a fool of you.

Click to expand...

What in the world would make you think the lack of a particular clause in authorizing resolution would exempt the rule from laws against lying to the government? It's not like 18 USC 47 § 1001 just magically poofed into existence ex nihilo in the time since you said that.

Still, a reminder, since you passed over↑ last time↑: At no point does the fact that something is art actually change what it is. Thus, falsely attesting in a formal government document might well be intended as some manner of performance—e.g., mockery—but it is still an official act of lying.

As to the question of ethic, it's pretty simple: That we need to pretend an act undertaken as mockery is not the act undertaken says everything we need to know about the low ethic that would justify such behavior.
____________________

Notes:

"18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally ". United States Code. (2020) Law.Cornell.edu. 9 Marchy 2021. http://bit.ly/3e96lXz