According to Ace, about the difference between the legal, campus and media treatment of two alleged rape cases at Duke.  If I were to comment, I’d probably say something cynical that impeached the integrity of wellmeaners, so I’ll just say: Twipe! Let the super-special pleading begin!

The following exchange took place just outside protein wisdom headquarters, at ~12:47 PM: me: “So.  What do you think about Al Franken’s decision to run for Senate?  Do you think it appropriate that the man who has spent the last decade getting rich off of hyperpartisan vituperation has decided to trade on his name recognition for a bid to join an exclusive body of lawmakers?  That is, doesn’t he represent

In Salon, Sidney Blumenthal calls Libby’s defense cynical, but doesn’t mention Bill Clinton’s lying under oath to a special prosecutor.  Nor does he mention the cynicism of the prosecutor’s selectivity in his charges.  Nor does he mention the comparative seriousness of what Sandy Burger did, and the lightness of his treatment.  I’m looking for an adjective to describe Sidney Blumenthal.  An earlier version held that Russert russerted that Libby had

Though to their credit, at least our newspapers are fighting it.  From “A needless distraction for police”: You probably shouldn’t smoke with your kids in the car. In fact, you probably shouldn’t smoke at all. But that doesn’t mean government should turn unhealthy habits into punishable offenses. Unhappily, that notion is beyond the grasp of at least one member of the Aurora City Council who is proposing an ordinance that

No, seriously.  Right here.  I know.  I’m stumped, too.

Q:  Why did the Neocon cross the road? a. To push over an old woman and take away her healthcare subsidies b. To beat those Dixie Chicks traitors with a tire iron c. Because, though he was really hungry for the blood of an innocent brown person, he decided to settle for some McNuggets and a medium Diet Coke d. THE MONIED JEWS TOLD HIM TOO! e. To burn down

Well, one of the posts has (surprisingly enough) veered off into questions about intelligence, warfighting, and preemption.  And, predictably enough, the conversation, in large part, reflects the fact that people have worn a lot of their comfortable, faded, broken-in arguments to the fight.  In general, there’s nothing wrong with that, but I’ve been thinking a bit over the last few days about stuff in general and have come to a

The New York Times coverage of the “Scooter” Libby trial has been fanciful more than once, but the paper would now like you to believe that “For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder.” Really? Jane Hamster was “damn near brokenhearted” at the end.  Jeralyn Merritt seems to think there’s a good chance Libby will be acquitted and reports that the obstruction of justice charging Libby with lying about

for John Derbyshire Your chocolates won’t make me love you. And your card, a blot of insincerity scratched in Colored ink, makes my teeth itch. So please — Give it a rest, would you?  And fetch me a Coors?