It starts with yard signs being stolen. Conservative James Wigderson dismisses the annoying prank. But it gradually builds from minor vandalism into a full blown rant about hyperbolic Democrats who are McCarthyites, who are led by those who would be rude to kind and gentle Vice Presidential candidates in televised debates, and who allow the national debt to explode all over the universe. Local vandalism to local politicians, to national rudeness, to bankrupting what had once been a proud Republic. The domino like emotional buildup makes it worth a read.
It seems a research group has compiled several government studies to document how climate change is impacting geographic regions of the United States. The CATO institute is preparing a rebuttal. Mother Jones magazine got hold of a draft copy. Not hard: it's on-line.
The rebuttal is a bit sly. It copies the cover design of the original report, mimics the writing and table of contents, and is titled "Addendum:" followed by the name of the original. Except this piece claims that "observed impacts of climate change have little national significance." Mother Jones calls it a rip-off and says the obvious intent is to muddy the waters.
Thoughtful conservative Julian Sanchez is a fellow at the CATO institute. So I suppose it is understandable that he departs from his usual analytical style and publishes his own attack on Mother Jones because the magazine's "implication is that Cato is trying to perpetrate some kind of sinister hoax." He is shocked at the implication of dishonesty.
Actually the implication seems pretty much an explicit accusation. And yeah, it is a hoax. Julian's defense of CATO is mostly that the name of the CATO Institute is on that cover and that the draft is available on-line. No attempt to confuse casual readers here, folks. Move along peacefully now.
Jack Jodell at THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST reveals who he likes for President. Although he doesn't put it this way, his argument is essentially the reasoning we have advanced at Fair and UNbalanced. Even though President Obama has not cured cancer, Jack is not persuaded to vote for Cancer.
The Heathen Republican examines the proposition that Democratic Presidents have abused Constitutional liberties more severely than Republicans. It is a serious and worthy topic, which Heathen addresses by means of an arithmetic comparison of the number of executive orders issued by each set of administrations. As may be suspected, I find the reasoning less than compelling. It is a little like arguing that I am a more reckless driver than my neighbor because there are more miles on my odometer.
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite fame does a bit of hoisting on petards. He notes how one video host describes prevailing Republican views on rape and abortion, using their own descriptions and attack ads from recent history.
marindenver at Rumproast notes with some shock a move by Republican legislators to deal harshly with any rape victim who decides to give birth but then needs financial assistance in supporting the rapist's child. Pro-Life is to be imposed, not supported.
Erin Nanasi at Mad Mike's America examines the Republican concept of gradations of rape. The idea is that rape is not a clearly defined horrible crime. It is a continuum going from a forcible horror to a sort of gray area of male/female misunderstanding.
During the final Presidential debate, it occurred to me that Governor Romney's campaign had been reduced to promising that his policies would be the same as those in place now, only better. He would be President Obama, except on steroids: a sort of bionic Obama. At News Corpse Mark explores the idea with some bemusement, reviewing the me-too policy point by point.
Chuck Thinks Right takes two disparate comments by Chris Matthews about the Presidential debates, "I don’t think he understands the Constitution of the United States" and "He’s the President of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance," and concludes that Matthews believes any challenge to President Obama is unconstitutional. These folks will breitbart at the drop of a hat.
Ryan at Secular Ethics considers the history that Governor Romney has pointed out of President Obama apologizing for America and discovers that there is far less apology in that history than the Republican candidate has suggested.
Tim McGaha at Tim's Thoughtful Spot analyzes what Intrade and others say about the probabilities in the next election and contemplates the future strategic military use of bayonets during a possible Romney administration.
T. Paine, at Saving Common Sense, suggests members of what he is certain will be a Romney administration cabinet. I especially like his suggestion for one department: "Perry has a long history involved with agriculture..."
Nancy Hanks at The Hankster explains how to access what had been a live broadcast on changing political culture through independent voting.
Trackback address for this post
I might have to start taking this personally. Is it because I'm a Republican?
Actually, my review has less to do with any of that and more to do with actual disagreement. I like to think of myself as what internet text designers call WYSIWYG, What You See Is What You Get. When I disagree, I think there is a not unreasonable expectation to explain why.
It might be worthwhile for you to consider criticism of your efforts as an acceptable price of success. And you might well choose to see that success, as I see your success. It is the result of careful thought combined with diligent research.
Your contemplative, evidence based approach has brought to you a level of respect and influence. It is one reason that, when I disagree, I feel compelled to offer my own reasoning.
I also like to provide a link to those I review. In your case it is with the hope that others will benefit from your work, as have I.
And THAT is something I hope you take personally.
Burr's point is fair. The ideal analysis would consider the "quality" of the orders alongside their quantity. But that would be tedious and inevitably subjective.
In any case, while FactCheck.org also dispelled that myth, it was your post that I remembered first when my father claimed yesterday that Obama had issued over 900 executive orders, so it was perhaps your post that allowed me to correct him. Unfortunately, he also revealed that he is a "birther." Some myths are easier to dispel than others.
Leave a comment
|« Introduction - All Good Gifts||Rape and Pregnancy - God's Will Be Law »|