I’m going to take advantage of my God-given right to quote my betters. From Kevin Drum:
I happen to think that liberals have basically won the church-state argument, and all that’s left is fighting over scraps that aren’t worth it. It just feeds the religious right’s feeling of righteous besiegement while gaining almost nothing in practical terms. Who really cares if Roy Moore plops a Ten Commandments monument in front of his courthouse?Still, even though I feel that way personally, someone is going to take this kind of stuff to court. There’s just no way to stop it. And if I were a judge, what choice would I have then? The damn thing is pretty clearly unconstitutional whether it offends me personally or not. Ditto for Intelligent Design, which any honest judge would conclude after only cursory research is nothing more than creationism with a pretty face.
In the end, then, even though I agree with Nathan that some of the fringe issues being litigated today are probably counterproductive for liberals (though I’m less sure I agree with him about some of the core rulings of the 60s), I’m still not sure where this leaves us.
Ain’t that the truth. I’m looking at P.J. O’Rourke this morning, a writer whom I’ve always liked. (via Pandagon.) The self-described fun-loving Republican Party Reptile wrings a whole outraged column out of the Ten Commandments case from the summer of 2003. (Time flies, huh?) It’s part of his general thesis that the true opponents of Republicans are “jerks.” O’Rourke doesn’t seem to like the fact that jerks1 wouldn’t let Moore install the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. Or, maybe he’s just responding to the wailing of jerks when exposed to the Ten Commandments in any capacity, wailing so high-pitched that only hackish2 conservative pundits can hear it.
I’m not a Bush supporter. Rightly or wrongly, I don’t think of myself as a jerk. I wouldn’t have minded if the case hadn’t gone anywhere. What would O’Rourke like me to do? Picket the courtroom?
1 Incidentally, let’s not pussyfoot around about who’s to blame here. The jerks in question are the Southern Poverty Law Center, District Judge Myron Thompson, the Alabama Supreme Court, Alabama’s Court of the Judiciary, and every single judge except Moore who touched this stupid case in any capacity. I hope that they are all ashamed of themselves.
2 “The jerks have begun praising marriage lately. But only if the bride and groom each have a beard.” P.J. O’Rourke, channelling Ann Coulter. Shamefully hackish.
A friend of ours had a 6th grader win an academic competition at a public school. First prize was a free week at a vacation Bible camp. Our friend mentioned to the principal that although theirs was the only Jewish family in the township as far as she knew, that perhaps such a prize was not appropriate.
The school board discussed the issue and decided that (a) the prize WAS appropriate (b) our friend was wrong for bringing it up.
Are you really sure those 10 Commandments monoliths aren’t an important issue?
Cranky
Crikey, PJ O’Rourke really has gone downhill, hasn’t he?
Is a vacation Bible camp what I imagine? I.e. a place where one is indoctrinated on a particular religion reading of the Bible? I do not understand how that could be thought as a prize.
DSW
My impression of the piece is that he was making fun of the president, but way to subtly for his supporters (and evidently, Ted and D^2) to pick up on. Unfortunately, being too close to the object of its satire, it fails.
O’Rourke has always been an arrogant hack. What’s different now is that he’s become a partisan arrogant hack.
I can remember when P.J. O’Rourke was funny.
> Is a vacation Bible camp what I
> imagine? I.e. a place where one is
> indoctrinated on a particular
> religion reading of the Bible?
Yes - just google the phrase and you will get numerous examples.
> I do not understand how that could
> be thought as a prize.
Just on the worldly side, like any camp there is usually a fee which was not inconsiderable for some of the families in that township, so that was a benefit.
On the godly side…. you be the judge.
Cranky
you be the judge.
That’s not what they teach you at Bible Camp.
I have to agree with Cranky, though from a slightly different perspective. For example…
“Class, repeat after me: Chapter 1, verse 1:
‘You will have no other Fact besides me; Though others appear, you shall smite them, for there is no other besides Me. Thus saith Evolution.’”
P.J. O’Rourke, Satirist: By Appointment to the Richest and Most Powerful in the Land.
I find it strange since in the USA there are quite a few religions that have readings of the Bible that are at odds, and since religious education is the choice of parents, I find that lacking.
DSW
I’m inclined to agree on matters like the 10 commandments display, “In God We Trust,” and suchlike, but the cretins who are trying to undermine our children’s scientific education. It’s monstrously inappropriate and appalling, and God (ahem) bless the folks doing the grunt work on School Boards and, yes, filing lawsuits to stop them.
I am so confused. If you re-read the piece, it sounds an awful lot like satire — the “marriage-beard” thing I thought gave it away — and is filled with cliched boilerplate that every conservative hack (and, presumably, Dubya) think in their darkest hearts. In other words, he’s making fun of simpletons like Bush for believing that anyone who disagrees with him is a ‘jerk.’ Or is that being too charitable?
I never found PJO’R even a bit amusing, and I’m fairly easily pleased.
Perhaps a “Muppet Show” revival could feature a smug, pompous and unfunny right wing pundit muppet called R J O’Pourke.
Yeah, I can remember when O’Rourke used to do apolitical humor for National Lampoon. I remember that shortly after he left NatLamp, he wrote an article making fun of the color of South Asian people’s skin. I’m not kidding. So, yes, Jon, I think you’re being too charitable. O’Rourke knows he’s full of shit, but he finds these kinds of jokes easier to write. Whatever else it might be, conservatism is lazy that way.
I like Vonnegut’s take on the issue: He suggests that we should post the Beatitudes in our courtrooms. I could get behind that.
I’ve noticed PJOR is a conservative when married and a libertarian when between wives (get that thought out of your head - that’s now what I meant). What’s his current marital (and thus political) status?
O’Rourke is like Tom Wolfe. I like loopy sarcasm, hyporbole, burlesque, amd weird metaphors, so I like their writing per se. But always, back to the beginning of each of their careers, I’ve found them conning me into laughing at something obnoxious of the “starving Ethiopian joke” type. I don’t think that O’Rourke was ever less obnoxious than he is now.
I also think that Drum and a lot of others are compkacent about the culture war. The dam hasn’t burst, it’s true. I’d say that we’re closer than ever before, though. Bush ran to the hard right and dared the moderates to desert him, and they didn’t.
All the metrosexual bicoastal liberals were assuring us that gay marriage was a winning issue for the Democrats, and I don’t think it turned out that way. (I’ve seen a lot of the claims and counterclaims — everyone has their axe to grind, but I think that the issue helped Rove a lot where he needed help.)
The separation of church and state may have won the first bout. There’s no guarantee about the outcome of the rematch. You don’t think the right is going to stop with prayer in the school or the Ten Commandments in the courthouse do you?
O’Rourke is like Tom Wolfe. I like loopy sarcasm, hyporbole, burlesque, amd weird metaphors, so I like their writing per se. But always, back to the beginning of each of their careers, I’ve found them conning me into laughing at something obnoxious of the “starving Ethiopian joke” type. I don’t think that O’Rourke was ever less obnoxious than he is now.
I also think that Drum and a lot of others are compkacent about the culture war. The dam hasn’t burst, it’s true. I’d say that we’re closer than ever before, though. Bush ran to the hard right and dared the moderates to desert him, and they didn’t.
All the metrosexual bicoastal liberals were assuring us that gay marriage was a winning issue for the Democrats, and I don’t think it turned out that way. (I’ve seen a lot of the claims and counterclaims — everyone has their axe to grind, but I think that the issue helped Rove a lot where he needed help.)
Maybe PJ is on the payroll like Armstrong….
As noted, PJ has held himself to a higher standard in the past. You can still hear him being occasionally funny on Wait, Wait … Don’t Tell Me”, where he has some genuinely witty co-panelists to keep him on his toes.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, writing for the Weekly Standard just doesn’t encourage wit. When you’re preaching to the choir, being funny — or even thoughtful — just risks the choir’s wrath.
Who really cares if Roy Moore plops a Ten Commandments monument in front of his courthouse?
“His” courthouse? WTF? This is the Kevin Drum that you consider your “better,” Ted?
Sounds to me like Drum’s still in post-election mode, casting about for innovative new ways to cede ground to the theocrats so the good, decent, salt-of-the-earth folks in flyover country will stop being afraid of liberals. Feh.
As for O’Rourke, that ugly little driblet of homophobic bile (“only if the bride and groom both have a beard”) doesn’t strike me as the least bit out of character.
Who really cares if Roy Moore plops a Ten Commandments monument in front of his courthouse?
“His” courthouse? WTF? This is the Kevin Drum that you consider your “better,” Ted?
Sounds to me like Drum’s still in post-election mode, casting about for innovative new ways to cede ground to the theocrats so the good, decent, salt-of-the-earth folks in flyover country will stop being afraid of liberals. Feh.
As for O’Rourke, that ugly little driblet of homophobic bile (“only if the bride and groom both have a beard”) doesn’t strike me as the least bit out of character.
I remember seeing him on a panel of comedy writers in the 90s. Watching him carelessly throw out hilarious one-liners was like watching Michael Jordan shoot free throws. He’s obviously a really talented guy, and I’d hold him responsible for a chunk of my lingering positive regard for libertarianism.
I’ve never, ever read anything from the guy that set my teeth on edge like that piece. It’s Mark Steyn-level. Maybe he needs to hit the road again.
Cranky nails it, and Drum is wrong. The Deep South is much less Jewish than it was fifty years ago, and you wouldn’t want to send your kids to school in many small towns in Alabama.
We have by no means won this fight yet. Decency and sanity are in fact losing in the Red States. Give these people an inch, and they will invade Iraq in the name of Jesus.
You can still hear him being occasionally funny on Wait, Wait … Don’t Tell Me”, where he has some genuinely witty co-panelists to keep him on his toes
I saw him on Have I Got News For You and he was sooooo far out of his depth it was horrible. Admittedly some of the program was about purely local news that he wouldn’t necessarily have heard of, but even on the international stuff he just kept coming up empty. In the end he was reduced to making jokes about how Americans elected a stupid President because they were stupid. I ended up with uncontrollable twitching in my “come over here, Old Blue, I’ve got something to show you behind the shed” muscle.
What really did for any appeal PJ O’Rourke had for me was his imitators, starting with Steyn and a legion of similar columnists in the print media, and followed by countless myriads in the rightwing blogosphere.
As much as I hate losing at the ballot box, for me, this issue is a “matter of principle.” For me this is about “taking rights seriously” and in matters of principle the little things count.
I also think that this is a situation where adherence to principle is pragmatically wise over the long term despite the immediate political consequences.
I think one reason this issue does not seem like “a big deal” to so many moderates and liberals, even to strong advocates of church-state separation, is that so many Americans consider themselves Christian, over 80 percent according to Gallup. If the United States had more religious diversity, then this issue would be much more pressing and much more controversial. Religious freedom is relatively easy when most everyone is on the same page.
My reason for sticking to principle in this case is that one day America will indeed be a more religiously diverse nation. This issue might seem trivial now, but what happens when Michigan is 60 percent Muslim and New Jersey is 50 percent Hindu? Will the Christian right still be claiming we are a “Christian Republic” then? Today they claim that we can only survive if we remain a “Christian Republic.” Unless the law continues to reject that proposition in favor of strict neutrality, their claim will fulfill itself. If we do not lock in our commitment to separation of church and state now when its easy, we may not be able to so once it gets hard.
We talk a lot in America about our ability to live with religious diversity, but we really have no idea what we would do if this nation were truly diverse. The American experiment is, at least in theory, a test of the proposition that citizens with diverse and even conflicting comprehensive doctrines, conflicting conceptions of salvation and the divine, can successfully govern each other in a political community committed to a shared set of political values that are precedent to each individual’s own comprehensive doctrine. If we are to maintain our unity and our freedom in a pluralistic future, it will be because we built a strong constitutional democracy while we still had the chance. Whether the majority of Americans believe it or not, the only government fit for a people who are at once diverse, equal, and free is a government not under God but under law.
O’Rourke, like most celebrities - even the minor ones, lives behind a firewall. He’s a sycophant, an over-bred house-pet with fangs and claws but no interest in the world outside the boundaries of his master’s domain.
But it’s a big house he lives in, crowded and thick with the smell of intrigue, and it probably looks to him like the religious nuts are taking over - because they are.
Anyone whose conscience is smaller than his self-interest will want to get in with the winners early when things get dicey, especially when the winners promise to be as vindictive as the current up-and-comers do.
Michael Chertoff is likely to become the new Secretary of Homeland Security. This has no bearing on O’Rourke’s reality, or anyone else’s, right?
It is to laugh.
The fundamentalist strains of Christianity that occupy the American middle-landscape have become a reservoir of highly-manipulatable virtually blind political power.
Organizing them is a breeze once you get the reins in your hands. All the best scammers and cynics know this. The somewhat rational left in the US is still comforting itself with the inanity of fundamentalist positions, because in the rule book it says the inane never win.
In four days Bush will be in his 5th year as President.
Laughter again.
Most churches don’t put the state above themselves, as even a cursory knowledge of religious institutions will reveal. Expecting them to voluntarily bow to secular power is hopelessly naive. But then that means forcing them to, and there isn’t any force available to do that, is there?
No, because it’s in the hands of the men who are putting Michael Chertoff in charge of America’s domestic safety.
Whoever they are.
O’Rourke doesn’t want to end up on the wrong side of those eminence grises, you can be sure. Thus he champions the Ten Commandments, or seems to; and seeming to is all that matters now.
The PJ O’Rourke piece is a perfect example of “have it both ways” satire… On its face, it says that anyone who holds certain liberal values is a jerk, and deserves to be ruthlessly mocked — at very least.
But if anyone tries to call the author on this, he can quickly switch to saying “No, I’m actually making fun of the sort of person who might say such a thing — like GW Bush, if he were more like Rush Limbaugh.”
He wants it both ways: he wants the right side of his audience to think he’s mocking liberals, and he wants the left side of his audience to think he’s mocking Bush (or at least the idea of an “uncompassionate” Bush).
Both sides of his audience should treat this with the contempt it deserves.
“My reason for sticking to principle in this case is that one day America will indeed be a more religiously diverse nation. This issue might seem trivial now, but what happens when Michigan is 60 percent Muslim and New Jersey is 50 percent Hindu? Will the Christian right still be claiming we are a “Christian Republic” then?”
Not if they don’t want their throats cut, and it won’t matter a bit what has or hasn’t been “locked in”.
Citizen, I think you’ve got it right. That is, that we’re a nation under law rather than a Christian Republic.
I think that regardless of which side of the aisle you consider, you’d find most folks would line up under that framework. I would think that even most Christians would agree.
As much as we can point to the hand of Divine providence at work throughout US history, that does not, in itself, make the US a Christian Republic. And although there seems to be the fear that a handful of zealous Christian Reconstructionists will seize the reigns of power, I doubt that a movement of that type will have the backing of rank and file Christians.
On the other hand, what does alarm a lot of Christians is the removal, or attempted removal, of a significant portion of the Christian heritage that has historically been a part of the US national experience. That extends to the present, and into the future, too. You might consider those of Christian faith as becoming disenfranchised with each attempt to stifle religious expression. There seems to be a growing intolerance for Christian expression especially from the secular left (please note Ajax Bucky, above).
So which will it be: the church ruling over the nation; the nation ruling over the church; or the two separate, but respectful of the other?
Battles like the church-state fight are NEVER won for good and all. And they’re about politics as much as they are about religion. Our local example is a Democratic state legislator who’s a blameless Catholic, deprived of her post as choir leader because she dares to recognize that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
They have to be stood up to. Every time. Without fail. Or they’ll move on.
Ken Miller: You should try being an atheist in this country, if you want to know what intolerance is like. I have been asked more times that I can count, “If you are an atheist, then why don’t you kill someone?” Somehow I suspect Christians don’t get asked that question too often.
P.J. O’Rourke is a jerk.
You should try being an atheist in this country, if you want to know what intolerance is like. I have been asked more times that I can count, “If you are an atheist, then why don’t you kill someone?” Somehow I suspect Christians don’t get asked that question too often.
You’re probably right, Walt. As a Christian, I get asked questions like, “How can you be so arrogant as to think everyone who disagrees with you is going to Hell?” or “Who do you think you are, going around speaking for God?” or “All you fundamentalist right-wingers care about is forcing women to spend their lives having babies, you know, like in that Handmaid’s Tale movie.” Okay, that last one isn’t a question, but you get the point. So, hang around a sufficiently wide range of people and eventually you’ll get asked some rude, uninformed, even belligerent questions. But let’s not call it intolerance, okay? Let’s call it “living in a democracy” or something like that.
ayjay,
Please bear in mind that many people who consider themselves Christians do in fact hold the beliefs you are asked about, especially the notion that non-Christians are going to Hell.
On the other hand I don’t think many atheists consider murder acceptable. So perhaps your analogy is inapt, and your questioners are less intolerant than many of you fellow Christians.
I’m an atheist, more or less. I don’t talk much about it, partly because atheism does not have the place in my life that God does in a believer’s life. It’s not like I get down on my knees before bed every night and disbelieve for five minutes.
But there’s no doubt that atheism is more discriminated against than Christianity. For one thing, two Presidents Bush have expressed their doubts that an atheist could be a good citizen (the second Bush, while he was in office). Outside the bluest of blue states, I doubt that a known atheist could be elected to high office. (Jesse Ventura wasn’t that great, but at least he said that religion is a refuge for the weak-minded — and got away with it. But that was in Minnesota).
Christians have learned the power of self-pitying victimization, intimidation, and lying, and it will get worse before it gets better.
When Kevin Drum moves to South Carolina, he’ll be better qualified to talk about whether liberals have won the church-state argument.
bernard yomtov and john emerson seem to have the odd idea that people whose ideas are unpopular are thereby the victims of intolerance or discrimination. Atheists are unlikely to be elected to high office in many parts of the U.S. because people tend to vote for those whose opinions (on a wide range of non-political as well as political issues) are similar to their own, and almost all Americans believe in some sort of God. No one has been denied any rights by failing to get elected to office. I think words like “intolerance” and “discrimination” need to be used a little — actually, a lot — less cheaply.
ayjay seems to have the odd idea that refusing to vote for a candidate because of his religion is no different that refusing to vote for him because of his views on taxes.
It seems to me that someone who refuses to vote for Jewish or Catholic or atheist candidates can reasonably be accused of intolerance.
What Yomtov said.
Ayjay’s victimization (by harsh sarcasm, hyperbole, and perhaps even litotes) doesn’t amount to much, and is also the result of the fact that people disagree with his ideas. The victimization bar was lowered by that whiny little bastard, not by me.
In fact, a considerable proportion of Southerners would not vote for a Catholic. This fact has seriously diminished Pat Buchanan’s demagogic career, and William Bennett’s too, since the South would otherwise be the best audience for the rest of their message.
And for this and similiar reasons, we quite rightly call the Southerners bigots.
john emerson seems to have been too occupied with trying to come up with a devastating insult to read my posts — achieving the phrase “whiny little bastard” must have exhausted his intellectual resources. I haven’t claimed to be the victim of discrimination or anything else; I just said (to him) that one is not discriminated against by failing to be elected to high office — election to high office isn’t a right — and (to walt pohl) that people aren’t discriminating against you when they ask you rude questions. Those aren’t difficult points to grasp, if you’re not hyperventilating.
bernard yomtov’s point — “It seems to me that someone who refuses to vote for Jewish or Catholic or atheist candidates can reasonably be accused of intolerance” — is a good one, and I think generally correct, though I think the increasingly acceptability over the last twenty years of Jewish and Catholic candidates among conservatives (e.g. Joe Lieberman) indicates that red-state Americans want their politicians to believe in some god rather than no god. The idea that it’s good for politicians to have some sense of accountability to a Higher Power is perhaps not as unreasonably intolerant as mere anti-Catholic or anti-Semitic prejudice.
“And for this and similiar reasons, we quite rightly call the Southerners bigots.”
And we are officially back to why the left doesn’t win elections.
To all commentators:
People have the right to vote based on any premise they desire. Common religious affiliation implies a common moral ground. This may not be true, but the perception is there. The fact that a group of people would vote based on a perception of common interest and values is neither bigoted nor intolerant.
What is intolerant is to assume that only your individual reasons are justified enough to make correct voting determination.
Cranky — As the father of a Jewish child in a school with mostly (>96%) gentile children, my advice would have been this: Bow, graciously accept the applause for winning the contest, and tell them thanks but no thanks on the prize.
My guess is that someone donated the week at bible camp to the school for a prize, and that is why the School Board said they weren’t going to go out and buy some other prize.
If the prize were a Virginia ham, the Jewish child would just say thanks, but no thanks, and no one would be getting all huffy about it.
If you wouldn’t vote for someone just because they’re an atheist, you’re a bad person, and in a just universe you would burn in hell for all eternity.
Ayjay: It doesn’t bother me all that much when someone asks me why I don’t go around killing people in my spare time. My point is that Christians in the U.S. who complain about intolerance have no idea what they’re talking about. Atheists are treated with a constant low level of contempt, and by and large they don’t complain about it. I only brought it up here to make the point that Christians don’t know how good they have it.
My point is that Christians in the U.S. who complain about intolerance have no idea what they’re talking about.
Agreed, w.p. You’re absolutely right.
Yes, it’s hard for the Democrats to win elections when people in the South are bigots. The problem isn’t that we call them bigots, but because they are bigots.
The reasons why Buchanan and Bennet can’t get traction in the South isn’t because of the lack of a common moral ground. There’s plenty of that. It’s because of old fashioned Ian- Paisley- type bigotry.
My post wasn’t about electoral strategy. It was about bigotry. 40% of the voters in Alabama voted against repealing the miscegenation laws. They’re bigots too. And yeah, race hurts Democrats in the South too.
i realize that when I gratuitously insult whiny little bastards, they will feel justified in dismissing the content of what I say. This is a cross I’ve had to learn to bear.
Ayjay: You agree with me? You mean two people have successfully communicated with each other on the internet, on a blog comment board no less? I’m cashing out my 401k. The end is nigh!
Ayjay: You agree with me? You mean two people have successfully communicated with each other on the internet, on a blog comment board no less? I’m cashing out my 401k. The end is nigh!
Yeah, it kind of ruins the fun, doesn’t it? So forget I said that, and let’s try this instead: I’m so glad you’re going to roast in hell for all eternity, you whiny little bastard!
DBL, thank you for your well-reasoned post at 06:18 PM.
I’ll show you, Ayjay. I’m using my advanced atheistic science to build my own Robo-God to punish the believers! Your prayer shawls can’t save you now!
You should try being an atheist in this country, if you want to know what intolerance is like. I have been asked more times that I can count, “If you are an atheist, then why don’t you kill someone?”
That’s funny, I’ve never been asked that question despite the fact that the worst mass murderers in history have been atheists. Granted they were socialists as well, perhaps that’s the distinguishing feature.
Yep, that’s right, Thorley:
“Atheism: come for the mass murderin’, but stay for the baby-eatin’!!”
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review