Notes and Updates
By - Last year, I discussed the risibly spurious civil rights arguments Target was using as a pretext to not fire pharmacists who wanted to interpose their atavistic sexual morality between women and their doctors. To give credit where credit is due, at least one Wal-Mart refused to accept this silliness, and they have been upheld in court.
- Somerby has some Frank Rich flashbacks, using some choice excerpts from his appalling 2000 campaign coverage, which fully embraced they beyond-idiotic “Gush v. Bore” evaluation of the candidates (with the particularly ludicrous claim that Bush–who had governed to the right of the Texas legislature–was a “Rockefeller Republican.”) Of course, the fact that Gore was competent and knew something about policy was cited as a reason why he didn’t really deserve to be president. I pick on Dowd a lot, but while he’s a fine writer as a political analyst Rich is shallower than a lagoon.
- In an even more remarkable flashback, Jim Henley finds Glenn Reynolds arguing in 2002 that invading Iraq would work against expansions of state power, which in light of the half-war with France (which produced the Alien & Sedition Acts), WWI, the Cold War, etc. etc. was an argument of just staggering ignorance and illogic. (Military conflicts have, of course, consistently led to expansions of state power. Some of these expansions were actually desirable, but to propose war to cut against expansions of state power is a lunatic strategy.) And, of course, as Henley says it’s now much worse than that: “The greater charge is that the Reynolds wing of neolibertarianism has actively abetted the social mood that puts us in the most danger of letting a government (this government or another) get away with massive police-state measures. Because when it counted–through the last election and forward to this one–they put themselves in service to an Administration that clearly hoped to profit from scaring the country. And with their relentless hyping of “the threat,” they have done their bit to keep the minority of the population that reads blogs frightened as well. They’ve also minimized, excused or outright applauded every instance of actual security overreach by the Bush White House. From torture to warrantless surveillance, they’ve either argued that “the real scandal” is somehow opposing these things in the wrong way – all the ways appear to be wrong – or opposing them at all.” (On the latter point, see also Paul Campos.)