- Indian investigators do not believe that Iran was behind yesterday's bombing. That doesn't really explain the attempted bombing in Georgia or the attempted bombing in Thailand.
- Chinese Vice President Xi met with President Obama today amid revelations that China denied the U.S. Ambassador-at-large for religious freedom an entry visa in recent days.
- Speaking of China, another Buddhist monk set himself on fire to protest Chinese rule in Tibet. The young monk was extinguished by Chinese police, and (according to NPR) then beaten and arrested by those same police.
- Nic Robertson, lifting the . . . ahem . . . veil on the Taliban's political strategy.
- Pakistan is allowing some NATO supplies to transit Pakistan again.
- And Abu Qatada was freed.
Domestic
- Maine starting to look even more like it was stolen from Dr. Ron Paul. What's worse than Romney losing Maine outright? Romney looking like he cheated his way to Pyrrhic victory in Maine.
- More SANTORMENTUM.
- Liberals subsidize conservatives. Despite that, we still have to put up with their questioning our patriotism.
- David Weigel makes the pitch for Super PACs at Slate, largely echoing Colin's point of view in our recent back and forth--including the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy! Weigel refers tongue-in-cheekly to his position as Pollyanish. This Editor, not so tongue-in-cheekly, agrees.
2 comments:
Not sure how the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy comes into play, as both Weigel and I have cited evidence in support of our position rather than mere correlation. I pointed out a National Journal article noting that the advantage of presidential incumbency is less pronounced in this cycle while Weigel cited the editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation who opined that both Gingrich and Santorum would have had to drop out by now without SuperPACs.
But let us say for the sake of argument that Citizens United has nothing to do with any of that. Even if we admit that the evidence that Citizens United has improved elections is not very compelling, the evidence that Citizens United has made elections worse is about zero. And if we can expand freedom -- particularly the freedom of speech -- without making things worse, then that's a good thing and validation of the wisdom behind the Supreme Court decision.
Weigel's lede paragraph engage in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. You're right, he applies some evidence thereafter.
As to Gingrich and Santorum, yes they likely would have. But that they would have when facing a well-self-financed candidate is arguably a vindication of Citizens United in the circumstances of the Republican primary, it hardly bears out the broader statement about CU leading to greater competition. Again, see the plethora of competitive presidential primaries in recent years, before CU and under a campaign finance regime.
Nice rhetoric; it's of course persuasive so long as you subscribe to the money = speech framework and ignore the possibility of corruption. We've had this debate a lot and we can continue it but, as I'm leaving the country for two weeks, I beg your pardon in seeking a reprieve in this instance.
All that said, I am obviously enjoying the Republican primary.
Post a Comment