This post is a space holder, while I’m working up a reply to Steve Bainbridge‘s The Faith Card.
I wrote What if John Roberts is a “Serious Catholic”?, because I believed that many of those
who railed against asking John Roberts about the impact of his faith on serving as a Justice
did so because they concluded silence served their agenda better than having Roberts expose
his position. (Of course, they assumed they already knew and agreed with his position.) Faith
was very relevant, but mentioning it in the Roberts situation was deemed by those supporting
him to be politically unwise. Now, they are willing to play the faith card in order to shore up the
Miers’ nomination. Unwilling to chance using winks, they are are publicizing her brand of religion.
No matter the denials by the flashers or the flashees,
the faith card has already been played — flashed for all to see.
Of course, the Roberts confirmation was a week ago, not a decade, which would cause a
wee bit of embarrassment for most thoughtful citizens. Luckily for the zealots, of course,
their God works in mysterious ways — and so, apparently, do his servants.
If nothing else, laying the Faith Card face up on the table is the honest
approach — a bit more consistent with a Commandment or two.
– more to come – see faith, agendas and the supreme court (Oct. 8, 2005)
If you’re interested in my discussion with
the thump
of a thousand rumps
returning to their pews in unison
battery weakened
the low, slow laughter
of a demon
October 7, 2005
playing the faith card is more honest than the wink game
Comments Off on playing the faith card is more honest than the wink game
blawggers mug Old Gray Lady
Given its space limitations, today’s throw-away piece in the New York
Times about the relatively large number of lawyers with popular weblogs
did a fairly good job. See, “Opening Arguments, Endlessly,” by Jonathan
D. Glater, Oct. 7, 2005; via Legal Underground] Naturally, the blawgiverse’s
army of kibitzers (and some of my best friends and alter egos are kibitzers)
is out in force complaining about the article. (see annotated NYT; Volokh)
high noon
the boys refill
their water pistols
Thus, Mike Cernovich has pointed out that Evan Schaeffer practices
law in Illinois and Missouri, not Ohio, as stated in the article and its sidebar list
of sites. Mike says the article shows “why blogs were born – because the
Times can’t get anything right.” That assertion — along with Mike’s conclusion
that “There isn’t too much [thinking] at the Times” — shows why weblogs
frequently can’t be taken very seriously: They’re more about the writer’s pet
peeves and boogeymen than about objective analysis. They go for the
jugular (but hit only capillaries) in order to attack an enemy or nemisis at
every opportunity with gross generalities.
minor factual errors that aren’t important to the main story
being told. Little old ladies and nitpickers have done that
since the first newspaper was published. Let’s hope most
webloggers have more important things on their minds.
Similarly, Jeff at Hippa Blog demonstrates the customary need of many bloggers
to feel more savvy than the uninitiated. He complains:
“oilcanHFs”
“An article about ‘blawgers’ that starts off with a mention
of Daily Kos isn’t about blawgers. It’s about bloggers; they
might be lawyers, but that’s not a lawblog.”
A fairer statement might be: An article about lawyer-run weblogs that 1) starts
off mentioning Daily Kos (saying it deals with politics), and 2) later says
law-related weblogs are ‘sometimes called blawgs’, correctly shows that there
are many kinds of weblogs written by lawyers, without trying to deal with the
impossible task of deciding which is “really a blawg” — a topic of interest only
to weblawggers.
“oilcanHNs” I think the times article was meant to be and is a puff/fluff piece.
Yes, it would have been better if Glater did more research and fact-checking
(bringing in a wider variety of examples, and maybe noticing that Legal
Underground is not mostly Evan’s “thoughts on law cases”). But, the
quotations used show that the reporter understood the main topic of the
piece — why lawyers seem to be disproportionately drawn to weblogs and
why so many of them are popular. This piece tells us virtually nothing
about how the New York Times covers the truly important issues of the day.
Trust me, lawyer-weblogs is not one of those issues.
why many lawyers (and especially law professors and law
students) have weblogs: They have access to computers
in locations where they are mostly unsupervized and can
wax weblogriful while appearing to be working, studying,
billing, researching, or being otherwise productive.
p.s. I consider Mike Cernovich’s post about the Times article
a “puff post” and a quickie. So, I’ll be back to read his more
substantial pieces at Crime & Federalism — letting him know,
of course, when he appears to be demonstrating more bias
than insight. update (Oct. 8, 2005): Mike, and the omnipresent
and eh-rascible Eh Man, respond to this post here, where I left
a very responsive Comment.
and senryu from Schenectady’s own Yu Chang:
pumpkin patch —
this one is big enough
for my son
homecoming —
standing room only
in my office
quiet water
she joins me
in silence
corporate parking lot
another starling
settles on the power line
Upstate Dim Sum: Route 9 Haiku Group (2005/I)
Comments Off on blawggers mug Old Gray Lady