The White House renewing calls for passing the federal media shield law is a twisted and amazingly devious strategy. Such a law would protect the AP and other outlets from what the White House just did to them, but the only reason the law didn’t pass in 2007 is because the GOP filibustered it in the Senate.
Conor Friedersdorf explains the mental mechanics behind why Michael Bloomberg can simultaneously be awesome and a big bag of dicks. (The Atlantic)
Jonathan Cohn on a landmark new Medicaid study that conservatives think proves everything bad they’ve said about the program to be true, missing the bigger picture. (The New Republic)
New ideas about why people believe in conspiracy theories. (Scientific American)
Read all three. You won’t regret it.
I know it’s a tough time for this, but it’s easier to hide in our intellectual shells when we feel safe and normal. So since we don’t…
Here are some questions you should ask yourself. If you posted a bunch on Facebook/Twitter/whatever recently about guns, all those image memes, pro-2nd amendment stuff, would you vocally advocate allowing the remaining living Boston bombing suspect to keep guns before conviction?
Sorry folks, I’m not interesting in beating up the President today.God bless him.He’s got his work cut out for him.— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 15, 2013
New York Times op-ed columnist and economic Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman on #Bitcoin:
At the same time, it’s very peculiar, since bitcoins are in a sense the ultimate fiat currency, with a value conjured out of thin air.
Anonymous asked: wouldn't "people who want to marry their siblings" be an entire class of people?
Possibly. But unlike with same-sex marriage, the government might be able to successfully argue that it has a “compelling interest” in prohibiting that. That is one of the three tests a law must pass under the strict scrutiny standard.
This Tweet caught my eye:
Easy way to dodge androcentric events like TechCrunch Disrupt? Pledge not to speak at events which exclude women: http://2.dashes.com/154GF4S
The link redirects you to “A Simple Suggestion to Help Phase Out All-Male Panels at Tech Conferences” by Rebecca J. Rosen at The Atlantic.
My first thought was this question: Are we talking about events that “exclude women” or events where there are fewer women than we’d like to see? Because there’s a big difference between the two and if you don’t fully grasp the details of what you’re dealing with, you’re never, ever going to be able to do something positive about it.
Erick Erickson is asking “Why not incest?” as an apparent argument against same-sex marriage. Again, even if you think that’s a valid or even an interesting question, any possible answer or analysis is irrelevant in the debate.
The main question before the courts is whether or not allowing one class of people (straights) to marry while specifically denying it to another class (gays) violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Without taking time to point out how stupid and disgusting and intentionally insulting many such “questions” are, none of them have any relevance to equal protection.