“I’m scarcely the one to be lecturing others about sexism, eh?”
–R.S. McCain
Someone has a bad case of “July traffic slump.” Good luck with that, Stace.
I’d like to be making popcorn around now, but . . . I don’t have a strong stomach. IYKWIMAITYD.
UPDATE: Ann Althouse has the right idea. And soon, her critics will both have to “put some ice on that.”
UPDATE 2: I do know a little bit about this, BTW. Prof. Althouse is never going to admit that voting for Obama was a mistake, any more than Stacy’s going to admit that voting for Bob Barr was a mistake.
I mean, does anyone think I enjoyed campaigning for John McCain? After McCain-freakin’-Feingold? But politics is the art of the possible, not the art of maintaining one’s ideological purity.
But go give Stacy some love, anyway: apparently, he’s having a bad day.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Althouse has done yeoman’s work on the Madison fracas, but with Obama she still suffers from academic disease-she doesn’t know how to tell the difference between theory and fact.
Yes. However, that isn’t an academic’s disease–rather, it’s related to having studied law.
Oh, now, is that really fair? I think we lawyers are pretty good at that distinction, even if we have a hard time pounding into our clients. Academics, on the other hand, especially those in the “soft” sciences . . . .
I was wrong! 😉
Well, to be fair, when we’re advocating for our clients, we may well talk as though we didn’t know the difference. (If the law is against you, argue the evidence; if the evidence is against you argue the law; if both, attack opposing counsel.) But I assure you, every competent lawyer is keeping the distinction crystal clear in his own mind. I suppose it’s possible that academics who have been public advocates are doing the same. But it’s an academic’s job to be an impartial inquirer into and arbiter of truth, while a lawyer is charged instead with the duty to represent only his client’s position with warm zeal. Someone else is supposed to provide the balance by doing the same for the other side, with a judge to referee.
And at least the lawyer openly discloses his bias, and would be prepared to switch sides and do his best for the opposing point of view, so that all viewpoints got presented in their best possible light. No lawyer worth his salt closes his mind to the facts and law that favor the opposite side of the dispute; that’s just a good way to lose, apart from questions of honesty and rectitude.
I get no points for publicly chiding Stacy? Waaaaaah!