That's interesting, because the accounts I've heard/read suggest that the Southern game was characterized by runs/laterals while the Yankees were the first to introduce the forward pass.
Not sure (there's no link to the original report), but I assume the definition is consistent throughout every Administration. So I think you can use this as a visual comparison if nothing else.
Are you really working at MPP, Max? I'm kind of jealous, given that I applied for a job there and they never got back to me.
As for the League's lack of legalization-related coverage, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we all basically agree that prohibition is self-evidently stupid. We're certainly open to guest posts with lots of bad pot puns, however . . . .
I think this standard for burden of proof is frankly unfair to public figures. Every conspiracy we have to chase down the rabbit hole detracts from attention paid to serious issues like health care or national defense. You need to demonstrate at least some credible proof before we take these objections seriously.
McCarthy's entire line of inquiry is so silly it detracts from serious efforts to uncover relevant information about Obama. We're talking about a guy who evidently takes the purveyor of the "whitey tapes" seriously and doesn't even bother to check if the State Department actually issued a travel advisory when Obama visited Pakistan. Why should I take his other claims seriously?
I'm suggesting that historical events and certain strains of Muslim theology can be refashioned into a plausible justification for liberal Islamic reform.
To be honest, Murali, I know very little about non-Abrahamic faiths. But I suspect that any religion with a reasonably varied intellectual tradition can find justifications for embracing liberalism and modernity.
As for Hinduism, I could see how the caste system would seem incompatible with democracy. But recent history suggests that the Indians have made it work.
Eh, I think Mad Men and Big Love are intimately connected to two pretty important institutions. Namely: the nuclear family and the corporation (or the workplace, if you'd prefer).
Flattery will get you nowhere, Carter (although that is a very generous thing to say). That said, I really believe that all bloggers are - to some degree or another - spewing stuff out there with a lot less oversight than traditional journalists. In this respect, I am extremely lucky to contribute to a group blog with a bunch of prolific and thoughtful writers who edit my stuff and take the pressure off me to produce a new post every minute. The demands of a professional, one-man operation are simply different than my online hobby.
As for Sullivan's traffic (and I agree that it's a real concern), I credit him for airing criticism of the blog in a very forthright manner. I don't believe he's ever held anyone hostage to his linking largess.
I'm willing to give bloggers a bit more leeway because the medium basically depends on stream of consciousness posting that doesn't easily lend itself to editing or self-censorship. So yes, Sullivan is responsible for some truly awful posts. But he also writes some incredibly compelling stuff on a wide range of subjects, not to mention all the truly excellent blogs and authors he's plucked from obscurity. I'm all for judging his body of work holistically, but Trig Trutherism shouldn't erase or discount the excellent stuff he's produced elsewhere.
In the interest of full disclosure, I suppose I should say that the League really isn't a neutral observer in this discussion because Sullivan has driven a lot of traffic our way. But it's safe to say we were all fans long before we launched this website.
Disagree emphatically. I think he's been pretty essential on torture, Iran and gay marriage. I also think that when he's not ranting on about Trig's parentage, he writes as well or better than just about anyone else on the Internet.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Podcast: The Golden Age of Television”
Nope, it's definitely longer than one second. If it helps, I think we're all using firefox. Maybe your browser doesn't pick-up the embedded audio?
On “America”
This is fodder for the sidebar, damnit.
On “Mercy”
I hesitate to comment on the facts of the case, but from what I picked up in the Politico story, I think there was a pretty strong case for clemency.
On “Podcast: The Golden Age of Television”
Lev -
Wish I had time to respond to all of this, but I will say that your diagnosis of what ailed the final seasons of BSG is spot-on.
On “Did the Tar Heels invent the forward pass?”
That's interesting, because the accounts I've heard/read suggest that the Southern game was characterized by runs/laterals while the Yankees were the first to introduce the forward pass.
On “6 steps to disenchantment.”
Oh dear. Has the League reached PABB stage?
On “No Private Sector Experience Necessary”
Joe -
Not sure (there's no link to the original report), but I assume the definition is consistent throughout every Administration. So I think you can use this as a visual comparison if nothing else.
"
Hahaha that's a pretty compelling rejoinder. In my defense, I was still in high school during Bush's first term.
On “Momentum for marijuana legalization builds”
Are you really working at MPP, Max? I'm kind of jealous, given that I applied for a job there and they never got back to me.
As for the League's lack of legalization-related coverage, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we all basically agree that prohibition is self-evidently stupid. We're certainly open to guest posts with lots of bad pot puns, however . . . .
On “Andy McCarthy, just askin’ questions”
I think this standard for burden of proof is frankly unfair to public figures. Every conspiracy we have to chase down the rabbit hole detracts from attention paid to serious issues like health care or national defense. You need to demonstrate at least some credible proof before we take these objections seriously.
"
Tim Kowal -
McCarthy's entire line of inquiry is so silly it detracts from serious efforts to uncover relevant information about Obama. We're talking about a guy who evidently takes the purveyor of the "whitey tapes" seriously and doesn't even bother to check if the State Department actually issued a travel advisory when Obama visited Pakistan. Why should I take his other claims seriously?
On “Jumping To Conclusions”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1926180,00.html
On “The Annual Misuse of Hate Crime Statistics”
This was an incredibly informative post, Mark. Good stuff.
On “Modernity, Christianity and Islam”
Roque Nuevo -
I'm suggesting that historical events and certain strains of Muslim theology can be refashioned into a plausible justification for liberal Islamic reform.
"
To be honest, Murali, I know very little about non-Abrahamic faiths. But I suspect that any religion with a reasonably varied intellectual tradition can find justifications for embracing liberalism and modernity.
As for Hinduism, I could see how the caste system would seem incompatible with democracy. But recent history suggests that the Indians have made it work.
On “So much for school reform”
Probably true. I guess I was thinking of the cover-up and ensuing scandal when I wrote "lurid."
"
Tangential? She helped cover up her future fiancee's sex scandal while he was holding a government job. That sounds pretty significant to me.
On “This is not a persuasive rejoinder to rigorous sports analysis”
I eagerly await your contrarian defense of PK's predictive powers, Freddie.
On “Son of The Wire”
Eh, I think Mad Men and Big Love are intimately connected to two pretty important institutions. Namely: the nuclear family and the corporation (or the workplace, if you'd prefer).
On “Maybe credit cards don’t encourage spending”
Yeah, it's been on-and-off for a few weeks now. The actual post just links to that research paper, though.
On “quote for the day II”
Flattery will get you nowhere, Carter (although that is a very generous thing to say). That said, I really believe that all bloggers are - to some degree or another - spewing stuff out there with a lot less oversight than traditional journalists. In this respect, I am extremely lucky to contribute to a group blog with a bunch of prolific and thoughtful writers who edit my stuff and take the pressure off me to produce a new post every minute. The demands of a professional, one-man operation are simply different than my online hobby.
As for Sullivan's traffic (and I agree that it's a real concern), I credit him for airing criticism of the blog in a very forthright manner. I don't believe he's ever held anyone hostage to his linking largess.
"
I'm willing to give bloggers a bit more leeway because the medium basically depends on stream of consciousness posting that doesn't easily lend itself to editing or self-censorship. So yes, Sullivan is responsible for some truly awful posts. But he also writes some incredibly compelling stuff on a wide range of subjects, not to mention all the truly excellent blogs and authors he's plucked from obscurity. I'm all for judging his body of work holistically, but Trig Trutherism shouldn't erase or discount the excellent stuff he's produced elsewhere.
In the interest of full disclosure, I suppose I should say that the League really isn't a neutral observer in this discussion because Sullivan has driven a lot of traffic our way. But it's safe to say we were all fans long before we launched this website.
On “Overcompensation or necessary correction?”
Yeah it really does sound pretty compelling, particularly the stuff about paying with cash instead of cards to better control your expenditures.
On “quote for the day II”
I found this pretty affecting:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/whose-country.html#more
"
Disagree emphatically. I think he's been pretty essential on torture, Iran and gay marriage. I also think that when he's not ranting on about Trig's parentage, he writes as well or better than just about anyone else on the Internet.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.