Author: Scott Lemieux
William Saletan's latest piece comparing the "war on smoking" to an upcoming "war on obesity" rests on two clearly erroneous underlying premises, one of them fatal. The somewhat less important.
I come home from a movie and turn on Al-Yankeezera to see what the final score was. Bottom 9th, 1-2 pitch to Torri Hunter, Twins down a run, runners on.
I think it's correct to say that it's frequently "a background assumption of the conversation -- so much so that neither participant questions it -- that women have the ability.
One strange thing about Stanley Fish's defense of an originalism based on discovering the intentions of the author is that most defenders of originalism see the obvious fallacy involved. In.
William Kristol--who I would say was "phoning it in" except that punching the numbers on the phone requires effort; it's more like that Alec Baldwin "how to be a handsome.
The problem with the wingnut math put forward by the likes of Tinsley is that between running the IRS, foreign aid, grants to Robert Mapplethorpe and buying Cadillacs for welfare.
Like Matt, I can't recommend this article highly enough. The defense of soaring executive pay in comparison with virtually stagnant wages otherwise involves claims that this is merely the rational.
In comments to the Brooks thread below, my colleague reminds us of the very pinnacle of Boboian hackery: his defense of Bush's casually ambitious scheme to utterly transform Iraqi state.
