Letters

Reid was right on the filibuster ... in 2005

“The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history.”

Many today might expect this to be said by the current Republican “Party of No.” After all, Republicans stoop to the ugliest possible tactics in order to stop all of our health care problems from being solved with a flourish of the president’s pen. The nerve!

Unfortunately, many would be wrong. This statement was made in 2005 on the Senate floor by then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who didn’t seem to mind a legislative gridlock back then.

I find that I wholeheartedly agree with the Harry Reid from 2005, and not just because I lean to the right in the face of our current Democratic supermajority.

“When legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay. But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation, prevents a senator from ramming it through and gives the American people enough time to join the opposition,” Reid said.

Call Doc Brown and fire up the DeLorean. I want that guy in charge of the Senate!

The filibuster is yet another check in our republican system of checks, balances and separation of powers, which funnily enough doesn’t always look like fairy dust and rainbows. We assume that a good Congress is one that passes a great deal of legislation. I say a good Congress is a Congress that gets the legislation right.

Whenever I hear someone complain about congressional gridlock, I have to smile. It’s true that we’ve become a polarized nation. Both parties are reaching for the extremes, and that slows the legislative process down. But would the founders have wanted a single party in Congress that could pass whatever it wanted, willy-nilly?

“Delay is preferable to error,” Thomas Jefferson said. I agree with the man, no matter which Harry Reid is in charge of the Senate.

Tommy Grooms
IU freshman



Chaudhry misunderstands language

Yahya Chaudhry might think he’s being clever when he suggests speakers drop all connotations from offensive words and use only the original meaning, but unfortunately he’s only flaunting how little he knows about the way language works.

English is filled with examples of words whose every day meaning is different from their literal definition; “expire” means to breathe out, so should I stop using it to mean the milk’s gone bad?

The word “retard” provokes strong reactions and, unlike moron and idiot, it has not become far enough removed from its original meaning to make it acceptable for casual use. At the same time, it has developed enough of a negative connotation to make it hurtful when describing individuals who are mentally retarded, and the fact that Mr. Chaudhry takes pride in using it in this way shows an astonishing lack of empathy on his part.

What “sanctity of the English language” is he talking about? Does he think English was handed down from on high in some perfect form that must be preserved? Certainly humans define the connotations of words, but we also define their very definitions!

There is no reason a given word must have a specific meaning, other than that people have decided it should. It is obvious Mr. Chaudhry doesn’t care about preserving the English language; he only cares about his right to toss around words like “retard” and “nigger” and “faggot” without consequences.

He lost all credibility the moment he justified this by comparing himself to Shakespeare. I’d like to propose an experiment. Lock Mr. Chaudhry in a room full of African-Americans, gay people and parents of mentally handicapped children and have him read his pathetic excuse for an article out to them. I wonder if he’d still think the connotation of words was so trivial.

Megan Blau
IU junior