Assorted items from the past week, wherein the writers attempt to strike a balanced note on current affairs or challenge us to review and refine our own sense of balance, of what’s right and wrong, fair and unfair, rational and not.
Ed Morrissey praises a recent change to the Freedom of Information Act. As someone who has been, more than once, on the receiving end of FOIA-request delays, I have to agree with the good captain’s take on this matter.
Marc at Black Shards sees benefits in the close (and enduring) competition between GOP presidential candidates.
Chet Scoville has an all-too-logical reaction to the illogic hypocrisy of a certain overtly religious public figure.
Jim Wallis outlines his “prayer for 2008.” While some of Wallis’ comments are debatable (e.g., “Ever since 1968, the door has been closed to real social change in the U.S.”), the essay still offers a compelling look at the potentially expanded opportunity for social change starting next year.
Ben Smith offers anecdotal evidence to support a conclusion some of us reached years ago, namely: Bill Clinton is a much better balancer of the letter of the law and the spirit of politics than his spouse. Granted, he’s not running for office, but I have to believe he’d respond the same way, even if he were.
Dick Polman articulates, as only he can, what many casual political observers already suspect: “most endorsements don’t mean squat.”
McQ takes exception to the latest evidence of that evergreen threat: the nanny state.
Steve Benen posts on the increasing riches of the rich. “Good for them; that trendline is disturbing” was my predictably convoluted reaction as an independent Republican voter with equal doses of libertarian and progressive tendencies.
Bridget Magnus offers a “modest proposal” on waterboarding, while the editors of Armed Forces Journal offer their perspective on whether or not this “technique” is torture. (H/t Andrew Sullivan.)