I regularly follow a bunch of blogs that deal exclusively with politics. Now that the election strife is over, it seems to me that it might add to your enjoyment of this site if I link to some of them. So I've added a new section in the blogroll, called "Political Fodder" (to go with all the various cannon, of course).
Here's a sampling of just one of their recent posts---enjoy!
How the Media Frames the News
[UPDATE 11/11/2008: In order to reduce the time it takes to load this page (due to all the blogs linked), I am going to introduce a policy of eliminating from the rolls those blogs who have not posted for two weeks or more. It does not mean that their link will be permanently eliminated (only blogs which announce their termination, such as most recently The Continuum, will suffer that fate after two weeks---giving them a chance to repent). I continue to subscribe to the others, even when they do not post, and will add them again to the blogrolls as they update their blogs.]
I'd be interested in your insights on the Summum Aphorisms monument Supreme Court case to be heard Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing that case to my attention, Perpetua. It's a First Amendment case of an unusual sort, because although it involves religion, the issues are framed in terms of free speech. Instead of being sued to take down its monument with the Ten Commandments, the City has been sued to require it to put up an alternative version. I will have to do some background research to see why the Supreme Court granted review, and then I'll see what I can put up.
ReplyDeleteI love the cartoon.
ReplyDeleteBless you.
ReplyDelete+Cranmer
Your Grace, I am humbled by the honor of your visit to this unworthy blog. I sincerely thank Your Grace for the esteem of your blessing, which I shall endeavor to manifest here in my paltry efforts to emulate your most distinguished example.
ReplyDeletePerpetua, further on the Summum case to be argued today: I will not have time to write a full blog post about it. The proceedings in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals below were a bit unusual---the Court split 6-6 (and rather bitterly) on whether to grant a rehearing, and so the decision of the original three-judge panel was left to stand.
ReplyDeleteI cannot improve on this pre-argument analysis of the briefs and the issues (the authors of the SCOTUS blog do this for a living). I commend it to your attention.