Thursday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. A passing noted … and here’s a vivid demonstration of how memory is kept.
  2. A conversation (on complexity) continues.
  3. A discussion of race and the GOP. I might take issue with the characterization of the GOP as “the party” that uses the race card for political ends. I’d wager that if you took a sampling you’d find the Democrats do that far more often.
  4. A first, a student protest in the Balkans noted.
  5. One tough dude … and just a little whitewash in the UK press.
  6. Projection of modern conceits noted.
  7. An earthquake. Big.
  8. A battle remembered.
  9. How to get lots of blog traffic. I think I’m reconciled to my status as a micro-blogger. 😀
  10. Confirmation bias and the media.
  11. Popular history … gets it exactly backwards once again.
  12. Unhappy with Obama support of a UN resolution and why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 comments

  1. Projection of modern conceits noted.

    WTF? That’s one of the dumbest blog posts I’ve ever read:

    The idea of a cynical, atheistic opportunist in such an age is an anachronism, yet it is the assumed (and required!) preconception for the “findings” of “higher criticism”.

    I repeat: WTF? I can’t think of anybody who believes that “assumed (and required!) preconception.”

    Unhappy with Obama support of a UN resolution and why.

    Okay, I actually agree with the conclusion if not the tone of this link, but boy look at those comments.

    I’m sure you’ll say that this one is not in any way a (barely) veiled threat against Obama and the government:

    The 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are 1st and 2nd for a reason.

    If The 1st Amendment is taken, well…… I’m just sayin’.

    And this one is not in any way racist (or completely moronic):

    But, all in all, however Rev. Jeremiah Wrong’s apprentice Buraq Arafat Saddam Hussein Osama might want to screw with the First Amendment for the sake of appeasing mahoundians and surrendering to them…

    And a little more subtle:

    “I swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America”. – Barack H Obama.

    Who is this man? No one knows…

    I’m not saying he’s a secret Muslim traitor… just asking. And making sure to put the H in there, in case you forgot.

  2. Mark says:

    JA,
    On Jihad Watch, I don’t read comments to that blog … it draws a lot of heat and little light given the topic choice of the blog, yet the authors themselves I find credible and authoritative in their field.

    I can’t think of anybody who believes that “assumed (and required!) preconception.”

    How many people in the field can you think of, i.e,. academic scholarly Old Testament studies?

  3. Boonton says:

    So the zeitgeist of Jihad Watch is the authors. The zeitgeist of Fox News is the water cooler. The zeitgeist of the left is some anonymous report of some unidentified person at a protest being rude to a cop.

    The gods of inconsistency eagerly await the Temple Mark is building for htem.

  4. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Oh, please. I didn’t say “the Zeitgeist” of Jihad Watch is the authors. I said that I didn’t find the comments worth reading because they contain too much “heat and little light.” I have no blinkered clue why you connect that with Zeitgeist.

  5. Boonton says:

    I agree the comments contain little light. Shadows don’t have light but they often do a good job illuminating the shape of their source.

  6. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    So? Are you implying that my best look at the “source” of the left would be to read the comments threads on, say, Kos in the Bush years?

    It seems to me your social anthropological methods need work. 😉

  7. Boonton says:

    I thought that was your anthropological method….troll the water cooler, ask cops if protesters were polite to them etc. But it’s not a game of trolling thousands of comments to seek out the worst of the worst. It’s a question of whether the comments are shadowing the ‘source’ or if they are simply outside the box. There is no way, I think, to make this other than at least a partially subjective call.

  8. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I’m not sure anyone doing social anthropology will argue that it’s not a partially subjective endeavor. Look, if you want to troll Jihad Watch (or troll the Kos froth) and decide that’s the best way to get a handle on the Zeitgeist of left or right, go right ahead. I think that’s just daft, but hey, I’m not your nanny. You’re free to form whatever impressions you want of the “other” side in whatever way you choose. Just don’t call my particular methods culling the “gods of inconsistency” whenever you feel like it. My methods aren’t “inconsistent,” per se, I’m just not primarily looking at the direct statements of spokespersons.

    On that regard if, as you blog, you run across even tempered left wing blogs, drop a link in a combox for me, I’m always looking for more.