Ex-Donkey reviews the State of the Union address.
Chris Battles reviews the “State of the Bickering.”
Eric Scheie examines the recent “Implicit Assumptions” test, which “supposedly proves most Americans (especially Republicans) are bigots.”
Tom Hanna takes a look at the new House Majority Leader.
Prof. Bainbridge has some fun photoshopping Ted Kenedy’s reaction to the Alito confirmation.
Pigilito discusses a novel experiment on how to slow galcial melting.
Legal Redux compares the words of Osama Bin Laden in his latest audio tape and those of leading Democrats. He writes, “The similarities, especially on the war in Iraq and the spread of freedom globally, are stunning.”
Larry Bernard pens a lengthy post titled, “Blog Blowback from Dean Esmay.”
A number of bloggers examined the response to Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed. Cardinal Martini writes, “While I can understand that Muslims the world over are offended by a handful of Western newspapers printing mocking images of Muhammed, I myself can’t seem to muster any outrage at these newspapers.”
The Commissar calls on people to “Stand up for Freedom of Speech.”
Mind of Mog has an ongoing series on the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, with the first post here.
Armies of Liberation posts on the cartoon controversy.
The Strata-Sphere examines the issue in a post titled, “Tolerance Of Cartoons, Tolerance Of Violence?”
RINO Sightings
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 6 February 2006 | 11 responses
This week In the Agora plays host to the ‘RINO Sightings,’ a blog carnival which highlights blog posts from ‘Republicans in Name Only.’ Although the term was created as a way to disparage moderate Republicans, this group embraces the term. Here are this week’s entries.
A number of bloggers examined the response to Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed.
11 Responses to “RINO Sightings”
Hey I sent you mine to two email addys what gives?
I must not have gotten it. Re-send and I’ll definitely add it.
Send to your GMAIL with a FWD on it I think the Subject is Bam Bam
I believe you may have missed my submission email to you as well. I just re-sent.
Ditto the sentiments of others. Submitted, not posted.
I would suggest that Eric Scheie learn how to read a scientific study, but it seems he really just needs to learn how to read, simpliciter. He points to what he takes to be a tension between the researchers use of “self-acknowledged” reports and their claims to study implicit biases; yet the text in question goes on to say quite clearly:
“The researchers examined correlations between _explicit_ and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts” (emphasis added).
His ‘don’t think of an elephant’ rejoinder also fails the basic test of a proposed confound: it doesn’t account for the data. The data in question is about regional differences; but ‘elephant-thinking’, if it affects task performance at all, would apply across the board.
“simpliciter”
God damn I love phil’s comments.
Perhaps it is not reading, but cognition, that is at issue.
(And I say this as someone who scored perfect–that is, no bias at all–on the tests twice, months apart.)
And I love this comment:
“Um…what’s wrong with having a preference for people of your own race? Could it possibly be that this is a natural, innate characteristic of a healthy, balanced person? And that in fact there’s nothing wrong with it? And further, that trying to act as though you don’t have this perfectly normal affinity for people like yourself is actually unhealthy?”
A “natural, innate characteristic”? This is precisely the definition of racism, albeit of a more or less nonvirulent strain. (It demonstrates, inter alia, the principal intellectual failure of racism–the privileging of “race,” which does not exist, as a natural and irreducible construct, while rejecting historical evidence, such as the attitudes of Soviet apparatchiks toward kulaks or of misogynists toward their sisters, that such characteristics are arbitrary and only rarely salient.)
“inter alia”
I spent a significant amount of time last week arguing in my Legal Research and Writing class that only an abnormally pretentious person would use “inter alia” in normal conversation. But then, it would be bold of me to assume that the comments here are “normal conversation,” so maybe you’re safe, Paul.
Is it pretentiousness–or habit? (Although I would have thought that a law student would have been more apt to use the phrase than a polisci guy.)
I confess, for a law student, I am significantly Latin-averse. I am a big proponent of plain English, especially in the law. (As I learned in Torts: “An instrumentality is a thing! A thing! Save five syllables and te letters and call it a thing!”)
I still remeber only a few short months ago when I could barely understand a court’s decision (much less have any clue what a ststute meant). As with all specialties, I realize that there’s going to be some jargon, but I think it shold be minimalized as much as possible. I just try to avoid using florid lanugage when there’s a more commonly accessible way of communicating my point.
Besides, using Latin is almost always pretentious, not that I’m not guilty of doing so sometimes (e.g., when I use “i.e.”). Heh.