×
- I think the issue of assigning blame to media personalities for encouraging violent acts is actually simple to understand. Everyone knows that as long as you're not directly advocating violence, there will never be sufficient evidence that you did so. In Glenn Beck's case, I have no idea whether he (or Fox News) is consciously aware of this legal limitation. But it exists, and it allows Beck to indulge his revolutionary fantasies without bearing any of the actual burden.
- And while we're on the subject of violence, I'm honestly mystified why libertarians are so nonchalant about the American militia movement. Jesse Walker regards a piece on the movement in Time magazine with complete mockery, as if America has collectively lost its mind because people are organizing and training for a real-life Red Dawn. The issue isn't that these militias exist; it's that they are preparing for the totally plausible scenarios of invasion by U.N. forces, the U.S. federal government "taking their guns," or Islamic terrorist cells taking over America.
- Christopher Hitchens doesn't break new ground in a Slate essay that points out the unique qualifications for being an American politician, but insofar as he is making a point that can't be refuted, he fails to address how we might actually make our political system better. And it seems to be a running theme this year that very few are willing to say that it's not the politicians themselves who are flawed but that they are competing in political institutions that have been so severely warped that they have twisted politicians into the monsters that they are.
- Remainders: Tom Jensen makes a great point on the visibility of Senate compared to House races; Steve Rattner has a very low opinion of Congress; a New York Times columnist cut and pastes half his column; and Mark Ambinder talks elite commandos.
-- Mori Dinauer