Jindal High Jinks

You know, I have been pretty blasé about the Governor's race and not even all that exorcised about a Bobby Jindal victory. I can't say that I have been even remotely persuaded that Jindal would be a governor representative of what I think are in the best interests of the State of Louisiana; but I at least wasn't animated to go out there and raise a ruckus about him. I haven't even thought to be a critical voice on my blog ... until now.

The reason for this lies in the behavior of some of his apparent campaign staffers to squelch even the basic right of Louisiana citizens to hear and see and document Jindal's comments and public events where Jindal speaks on matters of importance to all citizens, not just to conservative Republican citizens.

You want to read a bit what I'm talking about here, try this story on for size. It is incredible that non-confrontational individuals, citizens of the State of Louisiana, peacefully attending a public event featuring someone who wants to be this citizen's governor, and without any inappropriate clothing or signs that would distract or disrupt the event in any way, would be thrown out of the event. And it is simply intolerable that Jindal would support this behavior.

Here's another story, with video footage, of a similar kind of behavior.

It just shouldn't be this way in a free society. Period.

And Jindal's now enlisted another person actively in the column against him now.

The Jena Six

Well, I've been pretty quiet on the blog, not because of a lack of interest in keeping it up, but simply because of a lack of time to dedicate to it. I'll keep posting as time and energy permits.

I thought that the whole situation in my State's town of Jena deserved some commentary from me. What do I think?

Well, from my perspective, it is hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that there is an inequity in the administration of justice that tracks along racial lines. Critics of the movement in support of the Jena Six try to make this an issue of a simple and clear-cut case of assault and that justice should be meted out to the six black students accused of assault in accordance with the law. They argue as if the racial tension and the context of racial discord surrounding this event should have no bearing on the prosecution of this case. They even go so far as to divorce the whole noose-hanging episode from the assault that is the basis for the prosecution of the Jena Six, saying that one is not even connected to the other.

However, even if you do divorce the two episodes and keep them as separate cases, it is hard not to notice that the noose-hanging behavior resulted in a kind of leniency within the criminal justice system that is at odds with the significance of the act. We all know that hanging nooses on trees in the rural south amounts to a clear death threat targeting a particular group of people only and exclusively because of skin color. The fact that it is a death threat should be enough to warrant detention and prosecution. If a person calls in a bomb threat to school or writes an anonymous note threatening to kill a teacher or a fellow student, the consequences for being caught in such an act are severe. What is a noose hanging if nothing more than a death threat? The fact that it is racially tinged is also significant because it stokes the flames of historical black/white antagonisms that can lead to the violent encounters like the ones that the Jena 6 are entangled in. I hear critics of the Jena 6 arguing that the noose-hanging incident is irrelevant to their behavior, but we all know that it is not. I also never hear critics take up the noose hanging episode as a matter of justice and independently critique how that incident was handled by authorities. If the six black boys hadn't assaulted the one white boy, not one critic of the Jena Six would be addressing the noose hanging episode and calling for the harsh administration of justice for white kids who did this. I am convinced it would be a death threat of the most vile kind gone ignored. As I see it, this simple disassociation by critics of events that are clearly interrelated in the whole dynamic of life in Jena these days is, in my view, more evidence of the inequity in how justice is both discussed and administered in this country with regard to racially-charged issues.

I don't defend the violence of the Jena 6. In fact, I abhor it as I do all kinds of violence. There should be punishment meted out to these kids, just like there should be punishment meted out to any person who assault another, whether it be the result of a barroom brawl or a playground fistfight. But the fact is that we do not treat all assaults the same in this country, and the Jena Six case just highlights that often times the different ways assaults are treated are conditioned by race, with the harsher consequences being reserved more often for the darker-skinned.

As an example, it is a damn travesty that the local prosecutor did not bring charges against the white kids who issued death threats in their noose hanging antics against black people by citing that there was no law upon which to base such a prosecution. First off, if he saw the noose hangings as a clear death threat, he'd most certainly have a case. And it tells us something that he didn't see the noose-hangings as the equivalent of a concrete death threat. And second, if his argument is technically correct in that the law has to specify exactly what constitutes a death threat punishable by arrest and prosecution and that noose hanging is not mentioned a specific death threat warranting such a response, then the travesty is that this isn't codified in law. Either way, it shows an inequity in the system of criminal justice that tilts against people strictly and exclusively on the basis of race.

That is what I, and I think most people, see in the Jena Six situation. It is not a question of letting kids who do something wrong skirt and escape responsiblity; but rather it is making sure that skin color doesn't matter at all in how we hold kids accountable and responsible for their bad behaviors.

Is Greenspan a Liberal Now?

Alan Greenspan has confirmed what is obvious to everyone except Bill Clinton-hating conservatives: Bill Clinton exercised a fiscal and economic policy that was responsible, prudent, and effective.

I wonder if conservatives suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome will start calling Greenspan a liberal now.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano

Well, now that the Fall Semester has started, I have once again foisted blogging onto my students. They are required to put up postings on the blogsite Cuaderno Latinoamericano. Check it out and leave some comments there for them. It always amazes me that these students, who can text message on their phones like it's second nature and who have very elaborate MySpace and/or Facebook pages, have very little experience with or exposure to blogging. This is my little effort to get them to build up some interest in the medium and to learn a little about the region we are studying in our class. I hope you visit the Cuaderno Latinoamericano and encourage these students in their foray into the blogging world. Hasta pronto!

An impolitic left

The leftist political action committee, MoveOn.org has a controversial new advertisement attacking Gen. David H. Petraeus by calling him General "Betray Us."

First things first: I am an anti-war advocate, and I'm not a Petraeus fan. Let's be clear about that.

Second, if you criticize Petraeus for not providing a balanced and unbiased accounting of the war, fine. If you call him a misguided dupe of the GOP political establishment, OK. If you claim that he is a GOP mouthpiece driven by partisanship and not by objective analysis of the war's progress, I'm with you.

But ...

If you call Petraeus a traitor, you're on your own.

It's ad-hominem character assassination at its worst, and liberals shouldn't accept or tolerate it. Period.

Where's Huck?

I'm currently here through the weekend for this reason. Always a fun time! I'll report back to the blog when I return.

Update: I gave the wrong link above for where I am. I am actually in Montreal, not Quebec City. I've updated the link accordingly.

Reflections on the Larry Craig Incident

I have to say that I find myself feeling sorry for Sen. Larry Craig. I must admit that I even feel badly about how he has been railroaded at one level.

For instance, I think it is absurd that what he did was cause enough not only for his being arrested, but also for his feeling the need to cop a guilty plea for a crime. What he did might have been seedy and unseemly, but I think it should never have been a cause for being arrested.

Where I do think Larry Craig bears some blame is not in what appears to be his Clinton-esque denial of being gay and engaging in a seedy gay pick-up routine in a public bathroom, but rather in that his public anti-gay rhetoric has reinforced a social stigmatization of gay lifestyles and encounters that has made it possible to criminalize behavior that should have never been criminalized to begin with.

A man or woman would never be arrested for non-verbal public flirtations intended to test the waters of a possible sexual encounter with a member of the opposite sex. Furthermore, I don't think it likely that even if a man or woman were arrested under similar circumstances for such a non-verbal heterosexual flirtation or proposition, this man or woman would be so publicly ashamed that he or she would plead guilty to a crime just to try to make the whole embarrassing situation go away.

This is what I think: Larry Craig has very profound internal conflicts about his sexual identity such that he believes he has to live a schizophrenic lifestyle and to do so in a state of denial about it. But Larry Craig did not commit a crime in that airport bathroom. He should never have been arrested in the first place. He should never have felt the need to plead guilty to any charge of criminal wrongdoing for what transpired. And he should certainly not have been run out of office for this.

It's a shame and a travesty that what he did actually might have been an arrestable offense in America. It shouldn't be. It's a shame that he felt so badly about having been exposed as engaging in gay flirtations that he pled guilty to a crime. He shouldn't feel so guilty and badly about his sexual preferences and how he conveyed his desire for sexual intimacy to another grown adult in such an inoccuous way. It's a shame that instead of a polite "not interested" from the object of his flirtations, which would have probably ended the encounter, he got a trip to the police precinct and a criminal booking.

Yet, it is also part of the tragic story of Larry Craig that his publicly condemnatory attitude towards gay sexual orientation and his support of an anti-gay social policy agenda made such things possible. It is tragic that Larry Craig played a part in making up the bed that he ended up having to sleep in himself, a bed that shouldn't have ever been made up to begin with.

It is hard for me to go to bat completely for Larry Craig precisely because of his vocal opposition to and vilification of the gay lifestyle in terms of his legislative and social policy agenda; but had he been more understanding of the marginalization of gays or even just simply silent about the topic out of respect for the human dignity of gays, I can say unhesitatingly that I would be defending him without reservation.

Even still, I don't think he deserves the treatment he is receiving. It's excessive and unwarranted. His career and his reputation are ruined simply because he engaged in gay flirtation, something that should have never been deemed criminal in the first place.

My Early (Very Early!) Lenten Sacrifice

Apparently, I am just not a decent person and go too far when it comes to leaving comments on conservative blogs. So, I'm giving them up, starting now. It's not really worth the unintended grief and hurt feelings I apparently cause and the resulting anxiety I feel because of that.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News and Cassy Fiano ...
Issue: Their Trashtalking New Orleans

Conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News has a column over at Townhall.com, which he cross-references on his own blog, and his blogger sidekick, Cassy Fiano, has her own piling-on posting relative to the topic.

Well, I tried to leave an extended comment on the Townhall comment boards, but they limit comments to 2000 characters, and mine went way over. So here's what I wrote in full. It applies to Hawkins primarily, but it also certainly can be said to his acolyte, Cassy Fiano, too. Here's what I had to say:

That fraud Hawkins is so easy with the condemnations. He loves to throw them around left and right when he knows nothing about it. I'd bet Hawkins hasn't even been to New Orleans ever in his life. If he had, he might at least respect the historical value of the city to shaping this great country.

As a native New Orleanian, let me tell Hawkins a few truths about my hometown and the people who live here.

First, the people here love their homes. Generations of families are rooted here. Matriarchs and patriarchs, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and even children are buried here. Everything my family has ever had and earned and been has come from living in this great City. To tell me that I'm stupid for living here, and to get over the tremendous loss we have faced here, is callous in the extreme. And I'd even say typically conservative. How would he react if I said that his home in North Carolina is a pissant little nothing, devoid of anything meaningful in life, so why would anybody live there? I bet he'd be a little ticked. Rightly so. One does not just throw away tradition so cavalierly and easily. One would also think that a conservative would understand this.

Second thing: Hawkins smears every person in New Orleans, heroes every one, who has come back here and rebuilt a life on the ruins of destruction without getting so much as a passing glance from the Government. There are thousands upon thousands of people who are the epitome of the "picking yourself up by the bootstrap" mantra conservatives are so fond of. In fact, knowing how much of a coward Hawkins is and how quickly he folds under the mildest of intellectual and psychological challenges, I don't think Hawkins has a half-an-ounce of what it takes to weather such a calamitous experience. He'd probably wither like a prune if he and every single member of his extended family left their hometown and everything they owned one day and found out the next day that it was all gone, everything, and faced the prospect of having to start over completely with nothing except the clothes on his back and whatever he managed to save in his bank account.

Sure there are some people who are all too willing to play the eternal victim and who are living on the dole in New Orleans. But I dare say that there are plenty of such people in Hawkins' town, too. The fact is that there are exceedingly more people in New Orleans who aren't playing the eternal victim and who are managing to thrive on their individual courage, their ingenuity, and their strong sense of neighborliness and community.

Finally, I find it incredibly rich that Hawkins drools over Iraqis with purple fingers, and never has a beef about throwing US taxpayer money at them over there, and that he laments the incessant negative media coverage of the Iraq war, but that he can't even find a single thing of worth ever to write about New Orleans and its people. As I said before, there is heroism abounding in New Orleans these days. I wish Hawkins would find a little bit of that here to highlight. But it would take him a herculean effort to be human, instead of a conservative ideologue, and I'm not sure that Hawkins can do it.

2nd Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina

Here's what I wrote on my blog two years ago in the immediate wake of Hurricane Katrina.

There's a lot more Katrina reflection on the blogosphere today, too. And, of course, the Times-Picayune has a wide spread of Katrina anniversary stories.

Frankly, though, I must say that I'm wearied by the Katrina coverage and don't have all that much interest in rehashing and revisiting the moment. I'd much rather go about my day as routine and normal. Perhaps it's Katrina coverage fatigue, perhaps it's some deep psychological pain-avoidance thing. Who knows? But, it is what it is. For me, at least. I hope all who need to remember and revisit and rehash find value in it. But, I think, this year, I'm planning to leave myself out of it.

Quote of the Day

"As you go through life, my friend, whatever be your goal,
Keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole!"
(Anonymous, via "Pops" Huck)

Light posting over the next week or so because the semester is gearing up and I'm consumed by it. Fear not, though! I shall return!

Conservatives, Islamic Fundamentalists, and a Hillary Presidency

I have been pondering something quite intriguing about a potential Hillary Clinton Presidency. Let's say Hillary Clinton wins the next presidential election. What do U.S. conservatives do when Islamic Fundamentalist regimes throughout the world begin to hurl the inevitable aspersions at the United States for having a female President? An even more intriguing question is what do U.S. conservatives do when the male leaders of such Islamic Fundamentalist regimes and other fundamentalist movements like the Taliban and Al Qaeda inevitably attack President Hillary Clinton as a weak and worthless leader for no other reason than that she's a woman, and a socially degenerate woman at that because she wears pantsuits and makeup? Do conservatives defend their President from such attacks, do they stay silent because they are loathe to defend Hillary no matter what kinds of indignities she suffers, or do they basically voice their agreement with such assessments of their President?

You know how conservatives like to declare that liberal opposition to Bush and his policies emboldens the enemy? You know how conservatives like to sometimes even go so far as to declare that opposition to Bush on his war policy and his anti-terrorist programs equals support for terrorists? Ever heard conservatives casually throw out the term "Defeatocrats"? Well, I wonder whether conservatives have set themselves up for an unpleasant dichotomy if Hillary Clinton is the next President. Do they swallow their pride and declare their patriotic support for a President Hillary Clinton's war policies and anti-terrorist programs because not to do so will "embolden and serve the interests of the enemy" as it divides and weakens a unified American resolve? Or do they swallow their pride and take a cue from Democrats, and publicly oppose President Clinton, seemingly reinforcing our enemies' perceptions of our weak, ineffective, female leader in so doing, and defend their opposition on the grounds of a patriotic duty to oppose what they think is a wrong-headed leader with a wrong-headed policy?

I think the support-the-wartime-President-at-all-costs-lest-you-be-a-terrorist-fifth-columnist attitude of conservatives will become an embarrassing conundrum for conservative rightwingers if faced with a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

This scenario is a thought that, I must admit, amuses me and even gives me a bit of smug satisfaction, especially when I think of what this will inevitably do to blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Imagine Ann Coulter having to say something in support of Hillary Clinton (or to remain damnably silent) when Osama bin Laden says that Hillary Clinton is an affront to civilization and to God, and that the American people are a Godless people who can elect a woman to be their leader.

I hope to see that day when conservatives have to declare their unconditional loyalty to President Hillary Clinton in the face of insults by misogynistic Islamic fundamentalists, or else be labeled traitors to America if they don't.

Confidential to President_Friedman

I noticed the effort. Thanks for trying again, even though I'm all but forgotten over there. And by the way, your question about Ron Paul was great. I, too, am baffled by the amount of hostility establishment conservatives direct at Ron Paul. The only reason I can think of for the viciousness Paul gets from such folks is that what Paul says cuts a little too closely to the bone regarding conservative principles and the fact that many modern establishment conservatives really don't hold to such principles. That, and the fact that he could very well be an electoral spoiler for the GOP this election cycle. But, who knows? The Greeks fed Socrates the hemlock because they thought he was radicalizing the youth. Maybe this very same impulse is at work with regard to establishment conservatives and Ron Paul.

With Friends Like These ...

who needs enemies?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, orchestrated into power by the Bush Administration, responded this way about his erstwhile patron and Bush's mild rebuke:

Al-Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the earlier comments from U.S. officials.

"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.

"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said.

Now, Bush is planning to backtrack on his comments because he is afraid to hurt al-Maliki's feelings. The sad thing is that Bush has painted himself into this corner and has given al-Maliki the upper hand in the relationship. Bush needs the Iraqi government to succeed, even if it is an ineffective and counterproductive one, because he has so much invested in having Iraq seem less like the basket case that it is.

In the past, such testy and whiny comments by proxy surrogates would be met with an even sterner rebuke and a harsher dose of truth-talk, rather than a meely-mouth cave-in.

Bush is reaping what he has sown.

Can You Catch the Irony?

Barack Obama has called for an easing of restrictions on some elements of the Bush Administration's Cuba policy. A critic of Obama's position had this to say about it:

Mauricio Claver-Carone, a spokesman for the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Pact, which supports full sanctions, said Obama's statement could hurt U.S.-Cuban relations at a crucial time.

"I'm sure he's well intentioned," Claver-Carone said, but he added that with the death of Castro possibly approaching and the potential for change on the island, such a statement could send the wrong message.

"It entrenches the regime at this historic time," Claver-Carone said.

Notice anything ironic about this last comment by Claver-Carone? Let me give you a hint: The Castro regime is coming up on 50 years in power. In fact, the Castro Regime is older than Barack Obama by almost two years! I doubt that anything Obama says is "entrenching" the Castro regime. Any honest person would have to admit that the regime is pretty much entrenched already, and has been long before Obama even knew who Castro was. It's statements like these that defy the imagination and point out ever so much more the anachronism that is the pro-embargo lobby in the United States.

NOTE: Cross-posted at Cuaderno Latinoamericano.

Advice to Young Conservatives Getting Ready for College

As a college professor, I would like to say to young conservatives (and, really, to all young people) about to embark on the "liberal brainwashing" that is college. Take heart! Just think that if colleges and universities really were the big brother boogeyman liberal indoctrination machines that Rush Limbaugh would have you believe, there would be much fewer conservatives, independents, and libertarians with college degrees out there.

The fact that many young conservatives not only survive college, but also come through it perhaps with a more informed conservative conviction, is proof positive that college is good for both liberals and conservatives (and even independent and/or apolitical folk, too!)

What is scary to folks like Rush Limbaugh is that college encourages critical thinking. College bombards you with information and data and then challenges you to digest it, make sense of it, and to argue in defense of the conclusions you reach from the critical thinking process with those who come to different conclusions when digesting and thinking on the same information and data. And please know that having what you believe challenged by others is not an assault on your being. It is an invitation to study, think, and argue back.

Folk like Limbaugh are afraid that if you think critically you might become liberal. And they call it brainwashing if, in fact, this happens. Well, let me just tell you that critical thinking is not something to be afraid of. Sure, it may (and probably will) change your view the world; but how it does so is wide open and is ultimately up to you.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: Rightwing Hypocrisy - Hawkins scoffs at a Liberal blog for "STIFLING DISSENT" by closing off comments.

John Hawkins, owner of the conservative blog Right Wing News, writes about a liberal blog doing some "banning" of critical commentary:

When a few righties stopped by to challenge the almighty, allknowing Mahablogger on her rhetoric, she shut the comments down. Effectively STIFLING DISSENT, as it were.

Seems to me that shutting down the comments "stifles" both dissent and support. It's an equal opportunity restriction. Given that, I can't see how Hawkins can make this a question of ideological censorship as he seems to be doing. But, that's not really the point I want to make. My beef with this is the bald-faced hypocrisy of Hawkins, who has the nerve to throw stones and brazenly criticize a liberal blog in this way when he did precisely the same to me. In fact, I can argue that what Hawkins did to me is even worse, since he didn't muffle the rumblings of his own stormtroopers when he shut me down. Sadly, what I find even more discouraging, though, is that the regular commenters at RWN seem to have collective amnesia about this, too, never calling Hawkins on this hypocrisy. When Hawkins complains about the Mahablog effectively "STIFLING DISSENT," hardly any of his regular commenters think to say to him: "Uh, but Hawkins, what about Huckupchuck? Did you not 'stifle' him for no apparent reason other than that he expressed dissenting and critical viewpoints? Be careful throwing stones when you live in a glass house yourself." Or something along those lines.

I know that there are some good people on the RWN comment boards who have asked Hawkins for some clarification on why he banned me. And I appreciate that. But such efforts have only been limited to asking for clarification. And, with the exception of a regular commenter there who goes by the name President_Friedman, I haven't seen anyone criticize Hawkins publicly for banning me and yet failing to offer any reason why he did so. And I certainly haven't seen anyone at RWN publicly call Hawkins on the hypocrisy of his criticizing the Mahablog and other liberal blogs for "stifling dissent" when he's guilty of the same behavior.

NOTE (Friday, August 17, 2007, 7:44PM CST): I updated this posting from its original, which I posted hastily a few hours ago before heading out the door for dinner with the family, in order to add some more thoughts on the subject.

Wrap Your Head Around This!

I almost had a cow this morning when I saw this picture (click to the third one in the series) in the Times-Picayune this morning and read the following caption that went along with it:

Wanda Nazaretian, right, tells her woes to Lori Pichon about her 1400 percent increase in property assessments. Her home increased from $79000 to $1.19 million.

I'm still dumbfounded and rendered mute when I read this. Where do I start with it? First, am I supposed to be sympathetic to Wanda Nazaretian because her assessment went up so much? Am I supposed to feel for her that she had to wait in line with the rest of the "hoi polloi" at City Hall to protest her re-assessment?

Either we have some very incompetent assessors, or a very gargantuan mistake was made, or Wanda Nazaretian has some nerve complaining about having to finally pay taxes for her $1.19 million home.

I noticed that the caption didn't provide a specific address. And when I did a search of the Orleans Parish Board of Assessors Records, there was nothing listed under the name of Nazaretian. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Well, I think it could be true that Wanda Nazaretian's home is overassessed. Maybe it is worth $1 million instead of $1.19 million. Who knows? But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it is worth much, much more than the $79,000 at which it was previously assessed. I stand astounded at the gall of someone who, with the homestead exemption, has been paying literally almost nothing in property taxes for who knows how long, and then "tells her woes" about her "situation" as she pines away in line at City Hall. Let me tell you, Wanda Nazaretian does not elicit any sympathy from me.

It makes me sick.

Cafe Reconcile's White Beans & Shrimp Recipe

Today's Times-Picayune had a story and a recipe for Cafe Reconcile's White Beans and Shrimp dish. (Cafe Reconcile -- click here for their website -- is a great story in itself. Click on their link and read up on this very unusual and wonderful place.)

Now, I'm not normally a big fan of white beans, but I've sampled this dish on more than one occasion and it is fantastic.

My wife took a look at the recipe and said: "It calls for lots of garlic and 4 cups of heavy cream. 4 CUPS!!! No wonder you like it! Anything with that much heavy cream is going to taste great to you!"

Well, she may be right. But one can splurge every so often, don't you think? Give it a try. I promise you won't be disappointed.

Global Warming a Farce? Take 2 ...

A few days ago, the head-in-the-sand, anti-global warming Rightwingosphere jumped on some changes in a NASA report re-calculating the hottest years on record in the U.S. after rectifying a slight error in the statistical tool used to determine annual temperatures as wholesale evidence that the global warming phenomenon is pure fantasy. [NOTE: As much as conservatives would like to think that the U.S. constitutes the entire world, the phenomenon of global warming is precisely that: a measure of the world's temperatures, with the world constituting more than the U.S.]

[ASIDE: Well, we New Orleanians, basing our thoughts purely on our personal, lived experiences with the heat over the past 2-3 weeks, might disagree with the notion that global warming is a fraud. Honestly, I don't think I've ever felt this hot in New Orleans before. But, anyway, since my "feelings" don't count in a scientific debate, that's neither here nor there ... ]

Nevertheless, I'd advise conservatives to be a bit circumspect in their dismissive reactions and take a look at this little cautionary rejoinder from Bradford Plummer over at The New Republic's blog, "The Plank." And here's another piece of sanity on the subject, just for good measure.

Take it for what you will.