During breakfast, I often read the San Francisco Chronicle<\/a>. I always wonder what purpose it serves other than entertainment. The Chronicle<\/em> does keep me somewhat informed.\n<\/p>\n This morning, I've been pondering (as I have on many mornings) some political There's more to say, obviously -- but I figure that since politics is something During breakfast, I often read the San Francisco Chronicle. I always wonder what purpose it serves other than entertainment. The Chronicle does keep me somewhat informed. This morning, I’ve been pondering (as I have on many mornings) some political issues … Continue reading
\n issues and how I might respond to them. Take for example, today's
\n editorial calling for Antonin Scalia's self-recusal<\/a> in a case involving
\n VP Dick Cheney, who are apparently good friends and recent fellow-vacationers.
\n My first reaction was: \"This is another blatant example of arrogant power.\"
\n As I reflected further, I wanted to ask, \"Well, what are the precedents for
\n self-recusal in the Supreme Court? Should people who have an obvious and public
\n distaste for Cheney recuse themselves too? What's the difference?\" No final
\n answers on my part -- but cooler thinking did help me to see the picture in
\n a more nuanced fashion beyond my definite partisan position. <\/p>\n
\n that keeps bouncing around the foreground and background of my musings, I should
\n refer to some previous entries for some background. Here's some of what I found:\n<\/p>\n\n
\n musing on what Laura wrote today<\/a> <\/li>\n
\n the SF Chronicle as Morning Ritual<\/a> <\/li>\n
\n Winn on truth and truth-telling<\/a> <\/li>\n
\n Carroll -- a columnist with whom I largely agree<\/a> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"