Dark links cannot stand the light

Glenn Greenwald discusses the significance of the Obama administration delisting the MEK organization from our terrorist group files (it’s an anti-Iranian group so their terrorism is OK).
•Here’s part of a series of posts on why geology does not prove the Genesis flood. Not news to me, but if anyone’s curious about the counter-arguments, check it and then click on the link to Part Three. Echidne discusses pseudoscience more generally.
•The Atlantic looks at how we’ve gone from each generation doing better than its parents to each generation struggling to stay afloat.
•A post from awhile back on LGM discussing the question I touched on before the election, when you give up on voting because all the candidates are too corporatist/authoritarian/corrupt/left-wing/ungodly/godly/whatever. Their conclusion: If you’re not in active revolt against the government, it’s probably worth voting. More thoughts from LGM here.
•Rape apologists again. In case you were wondering, they still suck.
•My last And column discussed how talk of a “mandate” tend to reflect the wishes of whatever pundit is spouting off. Case in point.
•A reporter discusses why he left journalism.
•Another pre-election bookmark: Liz Cheney accuses Obama of abandoning our ally Czechoslovakia… a country that hasn’t existed in 16 years.
•The origin of the song “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”
•Our government doesn’t prosecute torturers, but God forbid you send money to relatives in Iraq. Or if you’re a US citizen and a Muslim and you leave the country. More here, which I linked to last week.
•Megan McArdle once again explains how people are poor because of their own bad choices. Of course, she’s previously argued that inequality of opportunity is a good thing so she’s presumably happy the odds are against them (for more on Republican contempt for the poor, see my And column).
FAIR and the Daily Howler discuss how pundits have begun objecting to pollster Nate Silver (whose Obama-has-the-edge polls generated a lot of controversy in the pre-election period) on the grounds that the numbers don’t match up with what they feel in their gut (Cokie Roberts incorrectly predicted one state going for Romney on the grounds of “the law of averages”) or that the “horse race” aspect of the election is really trivial. Curiously enough, they don’t seem to have objected to triviality when they were playing with it themselves (in 1998 before W had even announced, I saw articles discussing whether he was the front runner)—but of course going by your gut is light and fun and doesn’t require any sort of facts. It’s much more annoying when a killjoy like Silver lets reality intrude into your discussions.

About these ads

1 Comment

Filed under economics, Politics

One response to “Dark links cannot stand the light

  1. Pingback: Links for the memories | Fraser Sherman's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s