Wednesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Seeing as climatology depends crucially on computer aided story telling … alas the left these days seems firmly convinced the answer is theology.
  2. A closet left.
  3. An odd statement by Mr Obama noted.
  4. A ban lifted in name only is still a ban.
  5. Democracy and Israel.
  6. Verse and the Coptic Queen.
  7. Medicinal cabinetry spotted.
  8. Questioning the use of the word “culmination.” 
  9. US manufacturing trends.
  10. “Greatest” art work? Really … but more to the point it is great and the comment may be apropos. I wonder how he feels about Muzak. 
  11. In praise of allegory and mythopoetic fiction.
  12. Praise for Ms Rand.
  13. I think the poster is looking for outrage as a response to Mr Scalia’s words, but I find them quite reasonable.
  14. Faint praise for Mr Obama.
  15. A career to not seek.

5 responses to “Wednesday Highlights

  1. “I think the poster is looking for outrage as a response to Mr Scalia’s words, but I find them quite reasonable. ”

    I don’t find Scalia’s reasoning very convincing. It’s well known that words often do mean things that the speaker didn’t intend. The classic Freshman law school example is:

    S: I think free speech means there should be absolutely no restrictions on speech.

    T: So you think there should be no legal problems with yelling fire in a crowded building, fraud, making death threats etc.?

    S: Errr no.

    The speaker’s words here clearly carry a meaning the speaker didn’t intend when he said he supported absolute freedom of speech. If the speaker spoke hundreds of years ago and we consider his words law do we follow the words or do we try to ‘channel’ the dead speaker’s spirit?

    By adopting a gurantee that gov’t cannot deprive anyone of equal protection of the law without due process, words were accepted which directly lead to the logical conclusion that gender discrimination is unconstitutional (‘cept under certain circumstances which it isn’t important to examine at this moment). Scalia’s idea that lawyers are supposed to be speculative historians trying to guess how historical figures who have been dead over a century would react if we could resurrect them, provide them a comprehensive briefing on cultural, scientic and humanities changes over the last few centuries and then ask them how they think their words apply to these issues today, rather than analyzing the actual words they left us doesn’t seem quite reasonable at all.

  2. Faint praise for Mr Obama.

    I watched D’Souza debate his essay and book on CSPAN not so long ago. A stunning collection of logical flaws, bad reasoning and imagining that his life experiences are shared by everyone (which you’d think an Indian scholar who comes to America to become an academic conservative and Christian apologist would at least be able to appreciate that his life experience is unique relative to most people he come sinto contact with ).

  3. Boonton,
    I’m not sure you’re responding to the same article I read. Mr Reno had nothing at all good to say regarding what Mr D’Souza’s offered. I think a “logical flaws, bad reasoning and imagining” summed up his take as well.

  4. I did read his article, but I’m not really taken very much by it. Obama’s the first ‘theraputic president’….ok I guess Bill “I feel your pain” Clinton wasn’t or for that matter George “Compassionate Conservatism” Bush? The language of therapy has become a bigger part of our culture so it’s not surprising to see that reflected on both sides of hte political spectrum but how that translates into actual policy I’m not seeing.

  5. Boonton,
    Regarding Mr Reno’s point, my observation was that I saw no indication that he was highly critical of Mr D’Souza.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>