There's a ton of stuff to choose from, isn't there? And the big ones, or at least the potential big ones, seem to be from the secondary headlines. I'll go with the Pope -- but I'll mention, too, carbon regulation and Iran.
What didn't matter? I don't know about not mattering, but I'm certainly on the side of those who believe the House CR was a maneuver to avoid a government shutdown, not a step on the way to one. I guess we'll see.
But as I said, there sure is a lot to talk about here. What do you have? What do you think mattered this week?
Showing posts with label religion and politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion and politics. Show all posts
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Friday, October 26, 2012
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to Lauren Tewes, 59.
Up two games to none, must be time for good stuff:
1. It's twenty-four hours old by now, but nothing has really changed, and I really like Ezra Klein's summary of where the presidential race is right now. The only thing I'd nitpick on is that I'd call the national vote tied, not a very slim Romney lead; in the three days since I've been counting, I noticed the Pollster lead change eight times. It sometimes inches up to half a percentage point, but until it passes that or at least stays there for a full day, I'm calling it a tie.
2. The Tax Policy Center, profiled by Annie Lowrey.
3. Theodicy: the public opinion data. From religion scholar Robert Jones.
4. Nice Adam Serwer piece on the Benghazi emails that proved...nothing. Again, I'll stick with what I've been saying: Republicans have totally miscast the Libya story as a scandal rather than as a (potential) policy failure.
5. And Joe Sheehan approves of the managers, so far.
Up two games to none, must be time for good stuff:
1. It's twenty-four hours old by now, but nothing has really changed, and I really like Ezra Klein's summary of where the presidential race is right now. The only thing I'd nitpick on is that I'd call the national vote tied, not a very slim Romney lead; in the three days since I've been counting, I noticed the Pollster lead change eight times. It sometimes inches up to half a percentage point, but until it passes that or at least stays there for a full day, I'm calling it a tie.
2. The Tax Policy Center, profiled by Annie Lowrey.
3. Theodicy: the public opinion data. From religion scholar Robert Jones.
4. Nice Adam Serwer piece on the Benghazi emails that proved...nothing. Again, I'll stick with what I've been saying: Republicans have totally miscast the Libya story as a scandal rather than as a (potential) policy failure.
5. And Joe Sheehan approves of the managers, so far.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to Gina Torres, 43.
And straight to the good stuff:
1. The Ezra Klein general election prediction model, made for him (and us) by Seth Hill, John Sides, and Lynn Vavreck. Cool.
2. Garry Wills on the nuns vs. the bishops.
3. More on that "odd" NYT article about Barack Obama and executive power, from Deborah Pearlstein.
4. Daniel Larison knocks down my claim that Tim Pawlenty (and Rick Perry) were the real runners-up in GOP WH 2012. OK -- but if not them, then who? Newt? Santorum? Herman Cain? Basically, I can see the case for Santorum, but as of what I know now I believe Pawlenty and Perry came closer to the nomination than he did -- and a lot closer than the rest of the gang.
5. And Brad DeLong is most excellent.
And straight to the good stuff:
1. The Ezra Klein general election prediction model, made for him (and us) by Seth Hill, John Sides, and Lynn Vavreck. Cool.
2. Garry Wills on the nuns vs. the bishops.
3. More on that "odd" NYT article about Barack Obama and executive power, from Deborah Pearlstein.
4. Daniel Larison knocks down my claim that Tim Pawlenty (and Rick Perry) were the real runners-up in GOP WH 2012. OK -- but if not them, then who? Newt? Santorum? Herman Cain? Basically, I can see the case for Santorum, but as of what I know now I believe Pawlenty and Perry came closer to the nomination than he did -- and a lot closer than the rest of the gang.
5. And Brad DeLong is most excellent.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Read Stuff, You Should
Lots of good choices today, but I'll go with Happy Birthday to Katrina Leskanish, of Katrina and the Waves fame, 52.
And the good stuff:
1. Good comparison from Ezra Klein between the deficit-reducing properties of the Buffett rule and Paul Ryan's budget.
2. Mark Silk fisks Ross Douthat on religion. I think about 10% of it is nitpicky and a bit unfair, but the rest, and especially the end, sound right to me.
3. A similar conclusion? Ed Kilgore on what happened to Republican feminism.
4. And more about the House Republican budget and the potential offsets to tax cuts. Very useful. From Kevin Drum.
And the good stuff:
1. Good comparison from Ezra Klein between the deficit-reducing properties of the Buffett rule and Paul Ryan's budget.
2. Mark Silk fisks Ross Douthat on religion. I think about 10% of it is nitpicky and a bit unfair, but the rest, and especially the end, sound right to me.
3. A similar conclusion? Ed Kilgore on what happened to Republican feminism.
4. And more about the House Republican budget and the potential offsets to tax cuts. Very useful. From Kevin Drum.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Catch of the Day
Goes to Matt Yglesias, for a (typically) wonderful post about heroin, penguins, and other fun stuff like that. He's taking down a Michael Gerson piece, and concludes sensibly that "Religion, I think, is not a good guide to definitive policy conclusions and that’s especially true when you try to make it an ecumenical theocracy."
However, and to have a bit of fun, he should be more careful. I don't know from Catholics, but I'm fairly certain that Yglesias is at best imprecise in stating that "Jews...think it’s required to drink wine on some occasions." Since he identifies as Jewish and thinks so, he's technically correct, but if he's thinking of (say) the Passover seder, grape juice is generally considered just fine -- for more, see this article on "Is it better to drink wine or grape juice at the seder?" (and note that it's helpfully labeled "Breaking News"). That does however leave Simchat Torah and Purim...a quick googling yields this clarification, which may or may not be helpful to the discussion (don't forget that different traditions within Judaism have different interpretations of the rules).
Actually, I have a point here, which mainly is that all of this discussion only reinforces what Yglesias says about a "ecumenical theocracy." People completely underestimate just how deeply weird religious practices can be to those who follow different faiths; the myth of a "Judeo-Christian" consensus is just a mess that ignores very real differences, usually (in my experience) by assuming that everyone else holds the same seemingly perfectly obvious values that you hold. And that's just among Jews and various forms of Christians, without even getting to all the other various religions you get in a immigrant, free, nation of 300 millions.
My favorite example of this is the Ten Commandments, which (despite sharing the same original text) are simply different for different religions, as this handy-dandy chart shows.
So, yes, any time that someone tells you that something is "the teaching of classical political philosophy and the Jewish and Christian tradition," odds are that they are going to turn out to be dead wrong.
Excellent catch!
[Restored after the Great Blogger Glitch of May 11-12]
However, and to have a bit of fun, he should be more careful. I don't know from Catholics, but I'm fairly certain that Yglesias is at best imprecise in stating that "Jews...think it’s required to drink wine on some occasions." Since he identifies as Jewish and thinks so, he's technically correct, but if he's thinking of (say) the Passover seder, grape juice is generally considered just fine -- for more, see this article on "Is it better to drink wine or grape juice at the seder?" (and note that it's helpfully labeled "Breaking News"). That does however leave Simchat Torah and Purim...a quick googling yields this clarification, which may or may not be helpful to the discussion (don't forget that different traditions within Judaism have different interpretations of the rules).
Actually, I have a point here, which mainly is that all of this discussion only reinforces what Yglesias says about a "ecumenical theocracy." People completely underestimate just how deeply weird religious practices can be to those who follow different faiths; the myth of a "Judeo-Christian" consensus is just a mess that ignores very real differences, usually (in my experience) by assuming that everyone else holds the same seemingly perfectly obvious values that you hold. And that's just among Jews and various forms of Christians, without even getting to all the other various religions you get in a immigrant, free, nation of 300 millions.
My favorite example of this is the Ten Commandments, which (despite sharing the same original text) are simply different for different religions, as this handy-dandy chart shows.
So, yes, any time that someone tells you that something is "the teaching of classical political philosophy and the Jewish and Christian tradition," odds are that they are going to turn out to be dead wrong.
Excellent catch!
[Restored after the Great Blogger Glitch of May 11-12]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
