I understand that Newsweek's blunder led to rioting that took lives. But let's think about this one for a second, shall we?

First of all, if Muslim interrogators in the Middle East decided to flush a copy of the Bible down a toilet as a means for getting a Christian detainee to squeal, I doubt they’d have much success first of all, and second of all, I really doubt the Religious Right would riot over it. Would we be upset? Sure. But guess what. There are lots of copies of the Bible, just like there are lots of copies of the Qu’ran. In the grand scheme of things, is one destroyed book worth the cost of a human life—let alone lives?

Be glad we destroyed your book as opposed to hooking each of your testicles up to the negative and positive ends of a car battery. That’s real torture. But the irony is that pain is a language Middle Easterners would probably understand more easily. They still do public executions in the town squares of Saudi Arabia and several other Middle Eastern states. Decapitation—just like the French used to do during the Reign of Terror.

Yes Newsweek should be ashamed for printing a story without doing the requisite fact-checking, but they certainly don’t take all the blame for this one. These deaths underscore the backwards mentality present in the Middle East. They underscore the religious fervor that supersedes rationality in a land where you can die because someone flushed a book down the toilet. Just saying the words feels a bit ridiculous, like it should be something out of a Saturday Night Live sketch gone awry. But no, it actually happened. That’s actually the world we live in.

Kathleen Parker had a lot to do with my views on this issue, so I’d feel like a tool if I didn’t at least mention her article.

The editor of Newsweek gave an interview to the nightly news speaking on the use of anonymous sources by the media. Recently, Newsweek had to retract a story that it ran, which accused U.S. interrogators of desecration the Qur’an at Guantanamo Bat in order to get prisoners to offer up information. Reporters said that the information came from "a knowledgeable U.S. government source," but did not state who this knowledgeable source was. As it turns out, this information was found to be incorrect after an investigation ran by the government. I am aware that reporters are often approached with information that is crucial to the public and should be released. However, as a writer for a political publication, an imperative action to preserving the integrity of the media is to gain every piece of information possible on a topic, especially where anonymous sources are concerned.

This is eerily reminiscent of the scandal surrounding CBS and anchor Dan Rather and the military record of President George Bush. Again, the media had the responsibility to check and check again the credibility of a source in order to ensure that the public is receiving the correct information; information that the public uses to make decisions on political matters. In both cases the media failed to do this and in the course of their reporting, wronged the public. However, the public is not the only party wronged in this scandal. The media are wronging themselves, convincing the public that they are not capable of reporting accurate information. Again, (hopefully) as a future member of the medial world, this is a scary thought to grasp. The news media are the main source of information to the public concerning public affairs, and often times, they are not willing to research these topics beyond what is reported in print and broadcast.

Information, whether from an unknown source or one with the utmost credibility, must be checked through interviews, documents, any means possible. If this is not done, the authority of the media is in jeopardy, along with the ability of the public to make informed decisions based on the inaccurate information that they are given. It is important for the members of the media world to bear this in mind when reporting to the public.

I know it has been a while since anyone has posted, but I felt the need to comment one last time on this issue.

To ban filibusters is to further destroy the spirit of contemplative consultation, the mutual agreements and compromise (as Arendt would put it) which are the base of real statesmanship.

One thing that we have forgotten is that partisanship, not cooperation, is what protects our freedoms. Cooperation is what caused the exponential growth in government and subsequently activist judges. If one reads the Federalist papers, they will find the framer's belief that factionalism will protect the country from the tyranny of the majority. Therefore, we may need cooperation on national defense, but when it comes to things like judges, I say "partisanship all the way." It is this balancing act, or "partisanship" if you will, that makes the two party system work so well.

This goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Those issues should be resolved through the wise interpretation of the constitution and other attendant laws, not through liberal activism or conservative activism or religious (or nonreligious) morality.

The premise of conservatives is that their "activism" is the correct interpretation of the constitution. Liberal activism is giving the courts the power to legislate as they have done in regards to abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action. "Conservative activism" means appointing judges who will allow congress to make laws.

Therefore, Frist was not trading one kind of activism for another. He was explaining to a large section of his constituency why he was taking a certain action. He explained that liberal activists judges have misread the constitution which has in turn hurt Christians. According to his view, the framer's based the constitution on the foundation of Christian morals. Liberal activist judges have thrown away that base and thus their interpretation of the constitution is "baseless."

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea; the Democrats are not right to act in the manner which they are by filibustering nominees. It is a partisan action which does nothing to promote any sense of cooperation, a sense which the Congress is desperately lacking in. David, I am glad that you pointed that out. Consensualism is, in a heterogeneous republic such as the United States, a much more stable and workable practice than the majoritarianist, absolute competition which seems to define the policy of both parties in our present time. I will continue, however, to defend my original position; in the context of what David and I have commented upon, to ban filibusters is to further destroy the spirit of contemplative consultation, the mutual agreements and compromise (as Arendt would put it) which are the base of real statesmanship. Here are my rebuttals to some things from Brian's post (and, to Brian's brother, I really appreciate your input and your constitutional citations).

Now the great mystery to me is why the hell the Republicans don't simply call the Democrats bluff and make them filibuster.

I agree completely. This would force the Democrats to demonstrate what is true; that they really do not have any interest in seeking compromise, nor do they care about proceeding with the business of running the country despite their petty partisan games. Like you, I am perplexed as to why the GOP is not capitalizing on this and using the opportunity to further wound the perception of the Democratic Party among swing voters.

If anything, the Democrats are the ones who have changed the Senate rules on advising and consenting, and the Republicans are merely attempting to change the rules back to the way they have always been.

Basically true, but that doesn't mean that it looks particularly good. Democrats may be taking a loose interpretation of "advise and consent," but it at least approaches a semblance (since rules aren't clear as to what means "consent" is delivered by). The Democrats are breaking with convention, which is bad; the Republican Party would be unnecessarily changing procedure, which while it may not be any worse in actuality, is much more severe from the point of view of the public, especially of the swing voter. Good politics necessitate that attention be payed to that voter's perception; they are the ones who decide elections, power, and ultimately policy.

The Republicans are completely within their Constitutional powers to change Senate rules.

True. But that doesn't make it a good idea politically for either the Party or the nation itself.

...we all know that the Republicans would never use this tactic of filibustering judges

I'm not convinced on that. I suspect that at least some Republicans would be perfectly willing to do so to block the nominations of judges whose views disagreed with their own on topics such as abortion, gay marriage, religion in schools, et cetera. Would that make it more just, in order to prevent the nomination of "activist judges"? I understand that Republicans have not done so in the past, even in these cases, but that doesn't define what current or future Republican congressmen might be led to do in a more starkly partisan environment as exists now.

But as far as "blurring the lines of church and state," that is ridiculous. (In reference to Frist appearing via telecast organized by evangelical/conservative Christian groups)

Not prohibited, but unconventional. And also unwise, considering that Republicans are trying to argue against judicial activism. To clarify my point, I am arguing here that Frist was contradictory by holding forth at an event subtitled "Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith" (USA Today). The theme of the event clearly was the belief that judges being blocked by filibuster would act in the concomitant interest of the event's backers. This is a view of the judicial process just as activist and just as warped as that of liberal judicial activism. By appearing before this group, Dr. Frist lost to at least some degree the ability to argue well that he and other Republicans are seeking wise arbiters of the law, rather than another branch of policy makers.

In short, the views of judges on politicized judicial issues like those mentioned above should not be what determines their appointment. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Those issues should be resolved through the wise interpretation of the constitution and other attendant laws, not through liberal activism or conservative activism or religious (or nonreligious) morality. I believe that President Bush's nominees are well-suited for that task, and understand it. It is congressmen of both parties who fail to understand the role of the judiciary.

Your first posulate: "The Republicans are completely within their Constitutional powers to change Senate rules."

Your second: "...if Democrats were the majority party, the Democrats would have absolutely no qualms about using their elective power to change the rules."

And so based on those two things you support changing the Senate rules? What happened to treat others how you want to be treated? I agree wholeheartedly with Adam that it sets a bad precedent, changing Senate proceedings when you don't get your way.

We live in one of the most politically divided times in our nation's brief and often volatile history. No matter which side you fall on, I think both can see the advantages of working towards cooperation as opposed to fighting things out with filibusters and rule changes. That's why my original post said shame on both sides, because two wrongs never make a right. We're not justified to change the rules because we don't like the results. So if the Democrats want to play dirty, I say let them. I'll take the high road any day of the week. Anyone who knows anything about anything will see who the real losers and winners are.