Sorry about the lack of posting lately. Earlier in the week I was a witness to a crime. Nothing too traumatic, really. But, as the sole eye-witness, I have been bogged down by bureaucracies of justice and their administrators, and the lawyers for the plaintiffs in what should be the civil component of the matter. I don’t want to comment any further out of concern for the implications such statements may have down the line, legally speaking. But here are some links to some things I would have liked to have blogged about, in no particular order.
Battlepanda on Rush Limbaugh and maintaining the progressive moral high ground.
Jerome Armstrong on early blog stuff and the Dean campaign and… Wesley Clark. Intriguing.
And, well, then there’s Marisacat’s take on that.
Much of the discussion at the Washington Monthly of Kevin Drum’s review of Lakoff’s latest.
Marty Lederman on the Hamden decision, which was the Supreme Court decision announced today, slapping down the lawlessness of the Bush administration’s procedures in Guantanamo.
Steven Poole making fun of the dissenters from the same case.
David Sirota with a post entitled “parties join hands to sell out America Again.”
News that the CIA concluded that Bin Laden was in favor of Bush’s re-election. Don’t remember where I saw it originally, but here’s a link to Kevin Drum with an excerpt.
I disagree with Nathan Newman on the Barak Obama speech. He makes a subtle point or two. But those subtleties aren’t worth much to me. If it’s so important to speak about faith, there’s no value in talking about the progressive inability to do so or lack of comfort in so doing. If Barak Obama wants to talk about his faith, by all means, he may. He won’t draw any ire unless he decides to pander to godbags. But there’s no value to anyone except Obama himself in the publicly tut-tutting over progressive discomfort with religion. Yes, that is positively Liebermanesque.
Ezra on the West Wing.
Culture Kitchen on implications of Peter Daou working for Hillary and what it says about the “netroots” as a grassroots force.
I may update this later, cause I feel like I’m overlooking a couple things.
10 Responses to “This Post Has No Title”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
jedmunds:
And you’re not blogging it??!1
Epi, he’s not blogging it “out of concern for the implications such statements may have down the line, legally speaking.” What’s hard to understand about that?
jedmunds, by putting yourself out to serve as a witness in this case, you are engaged in the true and pure work of a liberal. On behalf of all of us liberals (the people who invented “law and order” as an alternative to “take what you can get away with”), THANK YOU.
Dunno. Limbaugh hinted around on his own show that he was in the DR for pretty seedy reasons.
I don’t want to argue over Rush Limbaugh. He’s a mockery worthy character, and I suppose he provided the basis to fuel speculation. But I think it was an interesting point that deseved exposure/consideration. Not to get all instapundit.
If you didn’t read the speech and are instead going ballistic over Obama because of what some crappy AP reporter wanted you to know, you should be ashamed of yourself. Really, this is what we criticize Drudge, LGF, and Paste-eater for all the time, and now you’re doing it. Fuck you if you insist on being as stupid as Goldstein.
What’s so damn contoversial about not ceding fair-minded people to Pat Robertson?
I’m glad you’re okay.
thanks, sheelzebub.
squid, If obama wants to court evangelicals fine, whatever. god-babbling is what politicians do. it’s a primate ritual. if he thinks dems need to god-babble more convincingly, then by all means he should do so.
This straw-progressive babble about hostile secularists is frankly pretty dumb. And it’s in the fucking speech, whether you want to admit it or not.
or maybe I stepped into a parallel universe.
or maybe you’re a tool.
who knows anymore.
I’ll bet it gave Dean Broder an erection.
What’s so damn contoversial about not ceding fair-minded people to Pat Robertson?
Hey, there’s probably some fair-minded people in the Klan, too! Let’s not forget them!
What’s wrong with telling those “fair-minded” people that atheists and agnostics don’t have cooties, and that they should grow the fuck up and live with us– Just as we live with them ? If we have a common social agenda, why isn’t that enough ?
Pppphhht.
Hello Jedmunds… thx.