1. “When Americans adopted the notion that acting on principle, standing up and fighting for what one believes in, is virtuous, while changing one’s mind, even on sufficient evidence, is unprincipled flip-flopping and unseemly is not known, but it surely has its foundation in the American addiction to ideology which places greater value on belief than on knowledge. This notion’s absurdity should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t. Acting on erroneous principles leads to disaster, and why anyone should be willing to do that is an enigma. Yet even more sinister consequences follow from this notion. Since no prominent person, especially one holding elective office, wants to be labeled “unprincipled,” people are loath to change their views even when they know those views are wrong. Once they have decided that being “principled” is more important than being right, they have no inclination or desire to question the validity of their views by seeking the truth. The result is that these so-called principles become ossified dogmas, debate degenerates into vituperation, government becomes ineffective, and society disintegrates.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13778
2. “False excuses for anonymity and irrationality on affirmative action
The excuse journalists typically give for indiscriminately granting anonymity — we have no choice because it’s the only way people will speak, and anonymous quotes are better than none — does not, even if factually true, justify anonymity, since anonymous attacks are often worse than nothing: they’re inherently unreliable because they’re made without accountability. But as the above passages demonstrate, the excuse is often factually false, as was obviously true when offered by Jeffrey Rosen. Journalists use anonymity not because they can’t get anyone to speak on the record, but because, like Rosen, they’re too slothful to do the work to find on-the-record sources and they crave the sort of sensationalism that is possible only when someone is allowed to spout inflammatory garbage without having their names attached.
“Sources” demand unjustifiable anonymity for one reason and one reason only: they know that standard-free, reckless journalists will grant it to them. If, instead, their choice were between (a) attaching their names to their opinions or (b) not having their opinions disseminated by the media, many of them would opt for (a) — and our political discourse would be far, far better off as a result.
Adam Serwer makes an important point here that I was planning to make after reading this column today from Charles Krauthammer, which may be the most blatantly self-contradictory column of the year. It’s hard to imagine anything more contradictory than (a) the right-wing argument that empathy and political opinions have no place in judicial decision-making and (b) the right-wing argument that Sotomayor wrongly decided the Ricci “firefighters” case because what happened to Frank Ricci was terribly unfair and because affirmative action is a bad policy.
Inveighing against Sotomayor’s Ricci decision by touting all the sad things that happened to Frank Ricci (Krauthammer: ”he spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material”) is to demand that Sotomayor do exactly that which they claim is so inappropriate and which they accuse Sotomayor of doing: namely, deciding cases based on emotion, empathy and political views about affirmative action rather than the law and judicial precedent.
I literally can’t fathom a more glaring self-contradiction than those who are simultaneously objecting to the use of “empathy” in judicial decision-making and arguing that Sotomayor’s Ricci decision was bad because of all the unfair things that happened to Frank Ricci or because of how bad affirmative action is. Anyone arguing that Sotomayor wrongly decided Ricci by playing up the emotions of the case — rather than by citing law and binding judicial precedent, including Second Circuit and Supreme Court cases on the topic — is, by definition, advocating that judicial decisions be made based on empathy and/or the substitution by a judge of her own political views for those of the democratically elected officials in New Haven. Isn’t this too obvious — even in our political culture — not to be immediately understood by everyone?
Either judicial cases — such as Ricci — should be decided on the law and binding, relevant precedent, or they should be decided based on empathy for Frank Ricci and the alleged unfairness of affirmative action policies. Which is it?
…
That’s why it is very hard to avoid the conclusion, as Judge Calabresi argues, that the particular objections to Sotomayor’s so-called “temperament” are at least partially grounded in her demographic and cultural attributes — the idea that it’s perfectly fine and even commendable for the right kinds of judges, the ones who look and act like traditional authority figures, to be aggressive and even bullying with lawyers (that brilliant Scalia sure doesn’t suffer fools; you better be prepared when you argue in front of him), whereas the same aggression is offensive and upsetting coming from other types of judges who don’t know their proper place (Howard Kurtz: ”Tomorrow’s NYT installment: Sonia can be bitchy on the bench. Look for a whole lotta TV segments on her judicial ‘temperament’”).“
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
3. “Israeli PM Debuts New Road Map For Continued Strife
In a historic speech before the U.N. Tuesday, newly elected Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a comprehensive plan to extend political discord and senseless violence in the Middle East through the next 25 years. Key elements of the 60-page road map include a symbolic and ultimately fruitless 2010 regional summit, a tenuous cease-fire that will be violently broken mid-autumn by an as-yet-unnamed splinter group, a series of hope-shattering assassinations, and two untimely comas. “I intend to lead the nation of Israel out of this senseless, bitter fighting and chaos, and into a new era of organized, carefully thought-out fighting and chaos,” Netanyahu said. “If Israelis and Arabs work together, we can put off lasting peace indefinitely.” Sources close to the prime minister indicated that Netanyahu would be willing to consider Palestinian statehood if such a move led to a full-scale Mideast war.“
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/israeli_pm_debuts_new_road?utm_source=b-section
4. “Obama Revises Campaign Promise Of ‘Change’ To ‘Relatively Minor Readjustments In Certain Favorable Policy Areas’
In a slight shift from his campaign trail promise, President Obama announced Monday that his administration’s message of “Change” has been modified to the somewhat more restrained slogan “Relatively Minor Readjustments in Certain Favorable Policy Areas.” “Today, Americans face a great many challenges, and I hear your desperate calls for barely measurable and largely symbolic improvements in the status quo,” said Obama, who vowed never to waver in his fight for every last infinitesimal nudge forward on the controversial issues of torture and the military ban on homosexuals. “Remember: Yes we can, if by that you mean tiptoeing around potentially unpopular decisions that could alienate a large segment of the populace.” Washington insiders said that, while the new mottos are certainly in keeping with Obama’s pledge of government transparency, they are significantly less catchy.”
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/obama_revises_campaign?utm_source=a-section
