Ah, that great prophet of our times, Jay Kay of Jamiroquai.
Read here in Slate today about the Justice Department possibly perjuring itself before the Supreme court (to jump to the "good stuff" about the perjury... er, the "bad stuff", go here).
Read here in Slate's "In other magazines" in the Weekly Standard coverage (scroll down) about how they're still trying to tie Hussein & Al-Queda. (I'm not against researching an argument, but c'mon guys -- you're really going to bat for an Administration of documented serial liars, on the least believable part of their lies...)
Also read in Slate's "IOM" the "Even the Liberal New Republic" article summaries, one saying we should use gentler force against Iraqi insurgents (crowd control of tear gas and that ilk), and another saying we need to kill more bad guys better and faster. They apparently didn't read Slate's article about how hard it is to kill every single "bad person" and leave before your mass killings turn any more "good people" into bad ones...
Posts
"The Angry Grammarian: A New Musical"
11 hours ago
2 comments:
What news sources do you frequent? Slate, obviously, but what else? Do you watch any of the major networks or...FOX(ug) to see what the "enemy" is saying about current issues? Also, as an aside, this week's issue of the "New Yorker" that was sited in the Slate article that you linked to, has and article with Andy Bey and my uncle in it!!! Pick up a hard copy and read!-maya bee
I read Slate religiously, and often go to articles they link for more info.
I read the Washington Post and NYT online sometimes.
I read the Slate Fray. And I check CNN for headlines and summaries of what the "average citizen" is seeing about the news.
I don't have cable here; at home I used to flip through MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and Headline News.
I also read the White House Press Briefings pretty religiously, in part for humor (I'm thinking about having a running column on "How Scott McClellan avoided Perjury Today") and also to see the White House/conservative stance.
I don't usually feel the need to watch FOX too much to find out about "the other side." CNN, the White house briefings, local newspapers, and Slate, actually, give me a pretty good grounding in what "conservatives" are thinking. I also read various source stuff on occasion, as I said -- i.e the Weekly Standard stuff linked from Slate's In Other Magazines (though I haven't read it today). I don't feel the need to watch FOX because they're rarely making a rhetorical argument. And when someone challenges them in logic, there's usually a shouting match (though this is true of almost all of TV news) and nothing's learned. Watching bits and pieces usually gets me enough info.
The Daily Show used to be a great news source, and has great guests from all sides who (usually) actually say something meaningful. Real Time with Bill Maher also has good stuff in its panels, which I think are better moderated by Bill than anything on CNN. (The daily show is probably still good - I just don't have cable now.)
I also read some blogs (Kausfiles on Slate occasionally, though I hate Kaus; Geoffland; randoms). The thing is, honestly, I feel it's harder to find detailed logical cases from the "enemies". (Ask one of them to define "full sovereignty" and why it doesn't mean the ability to create or alter laws.) The most important part is familiarity with their arguments, and in depth, well-understood and sourced rebuttals prepared. I'm actually still in search of conservative sparring partners, outside of slate's fray.
J
Post a Comment