1) I’ve got a piece up at The Daily Beast arguing that sports fans are better off ignoring whatever happened at Tiger Woods’ house over the weekend — and a followup post at True/Slant pushing back against the folks who argue that being a highly paid endorser means that Mr. Woods hasn’t any standing to complain about his lack of privacy.
2) Prior to this weekend I’d never been to Greenpoint, a Brooklyn neighborhood where the signs are in Polish, folks on the sidewalk are mostly speaking that language, and the food is cheap and delicious. Thanks are owed to Elizabeth Nolan Brown for her hospitality.
3) I enjoyed this performance.
4) Victor Davis Hanson isn’t very good at constructing logical arguments (not to mention getting his facts right) — whereas Tim Lynch makes excellent points at The Corner. I should remember to send a contribution to the Cato Institute — any organization that funds the work of Mr. Lynch, Will Wilkinson, Radley Balko, Julian Sanchez, Brink Lindsey, and many other folks whose work I’ve followed is deserving of support.
5) Looks like ACORN isn’t always against hidden video stings.
6) Freddie writes:
I hear a lot, from people like Conor Friedersdorf or Mickey Kaus or others, that there is something beneficial in a Democratic president and a Republican congress, because this is a combination that reins in the excesses of either. I think that there are members of this here League who would echo similar sentiments. Yet we need to be clear what such a situation actually privileges, which is the status quo. Now in some sense preserving the status quo does indeed represent victory for conservatives, but often the status quo is simply antithetical to contemporary conservative goals.
I don’t think I am misrepresenting Mickey Kaus when I say that he and I liked the last instance of divided government, during the Clinton/Gingrich years, due to the status-quo-changing welfare reform bill and deficit reductions.
7) I’m not sure I understand the argument in Courtney Martin’s piece on the Washington Post pundit contest — it sure seems like she’s assuming rather than demonstrating its truth. I do think, however, that it’s tougher in some ways to be a female pundit, as demonstrated here by Kashmir Hill.