Open Thread

Benson, when she uses a term like “blood libel,” I don’t see the need to limit my critiques to her policy proposals (and I’m not aware of what policy proposals have actually originated from her). I’m within my rights to call her on it, and the question of whether her use of the term was ignorant or deliberately insensitive is a fair one, particularly until she rules herself out as a candidate for major office. I imagine if a dem of her profile appropriated a term with equivalent meaning for Italians as “blood libel” has for Jews, you’d have something to say about it.

Re: Reagan — it’s interesting to go back and listen to his press conferences as governor vs. those during the last years of his presidency. Back in the 60s, he sounds sharp as a tack. Not necessarily an intellectual, but sharp, on his game entirely. And well into his presidency he could really deliver a message. But he was really failing later on. I agree that attacking his intellect and supposed buffoonery was misguided, although some of that was aided by his apparent confusion of movie plots and reality. I also agree that a sitting prez’s policies are best attacked on the merits. But Palin, in her free floating attack dog role, doesn’t merit that. She deserves to be tested. Should we debate whether “refudiating” is good or bad policy, or what her use of the word says about her? Or perhaps dona is right, we should just ignore her, entirely.

withold

do people actually ever withhod their first names when meeting someone in person? because that would be creepy

TextperV, still calling someone by Stoner handle/ID at gatherings is creepy. Knowing a PLUSA’s real name is NOT creepy

The financial equivalent to the phrase “american exceptionalism” is ‘this time it’s different’.