Commenter Archive

Well, yes. But it works. And that's good enough for far too many people.

Really don't mind if I sit this one out.

Imagine having a President who would care about this information, read the document, and think about such things.

What schools might Obama's kids get into where they wouldn't if they were white?

If the claim is that people incorrectly call A, which they don't understand, B, which they also don't understand, then I don't disagree with this. But since they would almost certainly call C, which they also don't understand, B, if they came to think they had thoughts about C or were told by some intellectual hustler that they were supposed to have certain thoughts about C, I think it more accurate to say that they don't mean anything rather than that they are making a discrete mistake.

Maybe there's a connection between that and our lack of anything like Russell's BBC talks on our mass media.

Loved the send-up.

My assumption is that people mean “critical theorist” when they say “Marxist” these days.

You assume people mean things. The basis for that assumption is shaky.

Optimist.

The agencies know where I am and can send the fashion models any time. I'll gladly spill my guts.

I go back to what I've said before. Intelligence services may, or may not, have resources that would give them insight into the sloppiness of Chinese lab practices, and they might have some insight into whether some mishap occurred in this case. And they may not be able to tell us just what they know or how they know it, for tradecraft reasons. But if they are relying on scientific evidence, like the scientific agencies, I don't see why they are more credible than actual scientific agencies.

At minimum I would say there is no reason to believe the political left in this country cares about freedom of speech.

And the political right never has cared, and has, historically, been more effective in stomping on it.

If the "threats" were the least bit comparable to what is actually being done, you might have a point.

The only thing new here is that it’s the government doing it.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln............

And I am reminded as is so often the case, of Robert Burns.

Maybe if she had tried to remove a book.................

Some are, some aren't, depending on why they "refuse" to watch it. ("Refuse" is an interesting word choice, suggesting some reason other than mere lack of interest. And what might that be?) I'm not going to see it -- not refuse, just not going to see it -- simply because I have no interest in the entire Harry Potter story.

Is this really hard to understand?

I'm old school. not up to the minute.

Heimdahl was white, Goddamit!

What fun is that?

How many Anglicans actually know the distinctive teachings of their sect well enough to answer such a question? If my experience with other sects is any guide, not many.

Nobody is obliged to assist Debate Me, Bro whackjobs looking for exposure.

Why should I answer my question when you don't?

Rushdie said he couldn't be a heretic because he wasn't a Muslim. I'll take him at his word.

I don't remember Protestants trying to take communion in Catholic churches, or thinking there was anything odd about it. Maybe the Catholic church has lightened up on that -- I haven't been paying attention -- but they're entitled to change their club rules.

Leaving aside that that is entirely unresponsive, suppose you tell me what would happen if the Pope or the Grand Mufti declared you a heretic? Do you think they even think they could?

No, that statement isn't. I take it, then, that we agree on the rest?

Pinky gave up the hall monitor gig a while ago. I wasn't aware of any popular demand that someone else take it up.