Nothing to See Here – And You Thought Willy Was Slick edition
Thanks to Sid the Fish for the shout out. Now, here’s more stuff you should be reading instead of this lousy blog…
#
- Best debate wrap-up: Michael Bérubé swings a mean axe.
- First Draft notes a David Hackworth piece on how the military flexes its muscles to punish dissent. I think I understand why the military takes this hard line, but doesn’t truth outrank discipline?
- Damn. Seems like some Republicans have been… I was going to say naughty, but somehow election fraud goes way beyond naughty and into high crimes territory. Sid the Fish has the short story and a couple of links. Josh Marshall is on the case, too (you may have to scroll down a bit).
- The Fish also points us to this great explanation of Kerry’s health care plan. Any plan, big or small, will be subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences, but this plan does seem to have a lot going for it.
- I’m not operating with a lot of capital these days, but the Iraq War Vets at Operation Truth are going to get a few shekels. (Via Hullabaloo)
- Digby’s also got the question that I keep asking myself: How do the Republicans keep getting away with it?
- Wasn’t the debate in Arizona? How come Bush didn’t mention the hydrogen powered car that these Arizona high school students built? (BoingBoing) After all, hydrogen fuel was his initiative. (WhiteHouse.gov) Was it maybe because the initiative was a brilliant judo throw meant to benefit the oil industry? (The Angry Liberal)
- Blogcritics has the seven rules for How to Identify Bad Science. Here’s a game: Alter the following to apply to Bad Politics:
- The discoverer pitches directly to the media
- The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
- The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
- Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
- The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
- The discoverer has worked in isolation.
- he discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
Thursday, October 14th, 2004 @ 12:13 am 
Nothings
RSS 2.0
Both comments and pings are currently closed.