"I believe in free speech but more so in good editing. This piece is unintelligible."

The top-rated comment at an article that I was going to blog, tried to blog, but gave up on blogging... until I saw that the way to blog it was to blog that comment: "The 'cancel culture' debate gets the fight for free speech entirely wrong" by Eve Fairbanks (WaPo).

Here's a quote from the article that I'd picked out, then gave up on: "A robust defense of free speech sounds impossible to dislike. But if you interrogate it, you somehow end up proving the absolutists’ point: that they cannot voice 'anodyne' opinions, as they’ve characterized them, without attracting accusations of bad faith."

"Did Socialized Medicine Kill Natasha Richardson?"

Uh, probably, but since emergency helicopters sometimes crash, it all pretty much evens out, kind of.

Mickey Kaus leaks a JournoList thread.

We've discussed JournoList here before. (Remember? It seemed to trigger Ezra Klein's bizarre tweet that there were "a lot" of anti-Semitic commenters on my blog.) There are 300 journalists hanging out with each other on the list. Is that a bad thing? Are they coordinating their stories, losing their independence and sharp edge? Well, they aren't so coordinated that they can all keep the list secret, and here's what Mickey got hold of. They seem pretty tedious and unattractive. I don't mind if they keep it private, very private. That said, if there's anything on the JournoList about me — some scurrilous charge of anti-Semitism, perhaps — please pass it on. 

 ADDED: "The JournoList Sure Has A Lot Of Anti-Semitic Commenters."

Althouse in the NYT.

Playing the race card.

IN THE COMMENTS: John Althouse Cohen said:

Professor Althouse ... in the New York Times ... with the race card ... sounds like Clue ...

"Although I thought Ann's Rush apologism was unseemly and unfounded, I have to say I basically agree with Jon Chait..."

Eve Fairbanks reflects on our Bloggingheads encounter and displays the high regard TNR folk have for other TNR folk.

And what exactly is Apologism? (Homophone fans see "Apollo jism.") Wikipedia says:

Apologism is the metaphysical philosophy that argues that it is wrong for humans to attempt to alter the conditions of life in the mortal sphere of influence. It is opposed to the idea that absolute "progress" is a desirable goal for the pursuit of human endeavors...

Apologism stands solidly in opposition to the metaphysics of meliorism, which states that absolute "progress" is the desirable goal of all human endeavors. Apologism is not to be confused with apologetics.

Oh, I'm sure it all makes sense over at TNR as explained by Jonathan Chait or some other genius. Over here, we will quaff the nectar of the gods and allow the unseemliness to rage on.

To anyone who thinks I'm irascible.

See my reaction to "That's a little bit of bullshit":



(The "he" under discussion is Rush Limbaugh.)

It's the new Bloggingheads — with me and Eve Fairbanks.

They've titled this one "Ann Plays the Race Card."

ADDED: Althouse starts a meme:



Fairbanks is infected:

"The Republican Party has been using a grab-bag of strategies to counter Obama's policies over the past month."

Says Eve Fairbanks:

They rail against the stimulus package for its (supposed) pork. They hammer home their points with gimmicky videos and props. They speak in warrior rhetoric and revel in heroic, fighting-man stunts. But if there is one strand running through all these strategies, it is that they evoke a discomfiting feeling of deja vu. We've seen this stuff before: The GOP is currently reliving John McCain's presidential campaign. The return to the strategies of their fallen candidate may be the saddest illustration of the current state of the party....

But, in the end, the most likely reason the GOP's strategy feels like McCain 2.0 might be the simplest, and the saddest: With the party so badly on the mat and nobody boldly new stepping into the ring, there's no other template beyond their last presidential candidate's--even though he lost.

Is it really that bad?

"Why the Democratic Scandals Don't Matter (Yet)."

Ha ha. I couldn't get past the picture.

So the scandals don't matter, eh? Oh, let me force myself to read this.

Eve Fairbanks has 4 reasons why the Democratic scandalfest doesn't matter (yet):

- Most of the Democratic scandals have been on the state or local level....

- The Democratic scandals are not linked (and, to boot, are mostly so bizarre as to seem sui generis)...

- The Democratic scandals do not involve top party leadership....

- People do not yet think the Democratic president sucks....

I think the emphasis needs to be on that "yet."