Meta and Meta

Clinton Derangement Among the Democrats

At the risk of alienating myself from the entire civilized liberal blogosphere, let me state a concern about Obama's candidacy. As against the Clintons, Obama has by-and-large been the beneficiary of prevailing media narratives. E.g., The Clintons Are Playing The Race Card. E.g., The Clintons Are Twisting Obama's Words. E.g., The Clintons Are A Dynasty. Etc.*

All Men Are Created...Homogeneous?

David Frum, from Comeback Conservatism, "[W]hat is inequality but another form of 'diversity'? And what is 'equality' but another word for homogeneity?"

Indeed, what are words but noises that mean whatever hacks want them to?

Nice Rack

Brian Leiter posts Gerard Dworkin's "Is the Rack Torture?" It's a fine bit of satire, and a useful corrective to the pathological agnosticism about waterboarding that continues to be espoused by even "grown up" conservatives. (Strangely, the more they know, the less they know it.)

A Dim, Convenient Goof

A judicial opinion from the Queen's Bench [n.1] declares that An Inconvenient Truth

1. is "broadly accurate," and that it's central theses about anthropogenic global warming are "supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists"; but that it
   
2. contains errors of fact that render the film "partisan" within the meaning of the relevant statutory provision, such that it cannot be shown to students absent the presentation of other viewpoints.

The Volokh Conspiracy's David Kopel mentions only one of these two findings. Guess which?

I pointed this convenient elision out to him in a comment about almost a week ago (and I'm not the only one who did so), but so far no update or clarification in his post. I can only assume he wants to provide a comfortable echo chamber for denialists. If so, Mission Accomplished.

Depressingly, if not surprisingly, Kopel's brand of journalistic malfeasance is not peculiar to the blogs.

NOTES
1. "United Kingdom's High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division" sounds very grand, indeed. But in civil matters, the Queen's Bench is roughly analogous in its authority to a district court. So we're not talking about an opinion by the Supreme Court, here. Besides which, it's, you know, in England.

Infantile Aggression

Hilzoy has a great post limning the really weird infantile psychology that sustains the authoritarian conservative (but I repeat myself...).

Mark, I think this is another one of those structural advantages.

Operation Raging Queen

From the San Francisco/Berkeley CBS affiliate website:

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently [sic] rejected, building [a] so-called "Gay Bomb...."

[Said Sunshine Project's Edward Hammond,] "The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders [sic] to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably [sic] attractive to one another...."

The Enchantress says the guys who cooked this one up must have wound up getting a gig as writers on the Austin Powers franchise. If so, I suppose the "gay bomb" idea didn't make it into any of the films only because it was just so over-the-top.

(Via Talking Points Memo.)

Falwell That Ends Well

The imperative not to speak ill of the dead is obviously a nonstarter. Indeed, there is a whole class of dead persons of whom it would be ill to speak otherwise: Jim Jones, Idi Amin, Stalin, Mother Theresa, Bob Hope, and so forth. (How easy it is to skirt Godwin's Law.)

Whether Falwell belongs to this class is an open question (well, not really), but the notion that the question is mooted by concerns of etiquette is preposterous.

Wingnutty Goodness

Christian wingnuts: Evolution false unless life formed in Jif.

As Thyself

Thanks for sharing, Mr. Burgess. I want to say the feeling is mutual. But that would be so...un-Christian.

Clinton Hating: It's the Ressentiment, Stupid

Ezra Klein has a smart post on Clinton-haters' interminable sniping at Bill Clinton's post-presidency philanthropy. (The answer to Ezra's question, obviously, lies in the title of this post.)