Fair Enough

hmmm… i forget exactly what he wrote, but didn’t the context only make sense using “alteration”…i mean succession wouldn’t make sense here.

So either, Cohen’s analogy was totally incorrect- which he should then also correct.

OR

He thought the Tudors and Stuarts alternated, which would entail a greater correction than the above.

So the correction should actually read:

“I meant succession but upon further reflection this would make no sense in my larger point so I withdraw the analogy”

or

“My history was incorrect and the Tudors and Stuarts did not in fact alternate on the throne, so I should have found an accurate analogy to illuminate my greater point”

The Economist (a horrible magazine but very elegantly written) had a great correction on the Fair Tax this week. It acknowledged that it had explained the tax incorrectly twice and further admitted that this may because it thinks it is a horrible idea.

More corrections should be written in this manner: That is, admitting that a mistake may not have been made just because well it was an honest mistake but might have an ideological element to it.

I also think that this is the only period you will find that liberals etc talk about dynasties (in a bad way) in the sense that it is clearly meant to help Obama.

Should HRC get the nomination, I doubt we will hear much of this from the left-liberal media consensus.

Finally (I usually comment from Singapore, but am home in the US for the holidays and ext. jet lagged……) what are we going to do to increase the comments on this blog!!!!

So many great topics, and from the links and references you get from other bloggers, so many obviously intelligent readers.

Where are the commenters though? Probably too busy with their blogs..

Daniel goes so fast that your comment has gone below “the fold” in half a day and it just doesn’t seem worth it!

Like I really wanted to comment on that Scottish post, but now it is some 12-16 posts down.

Oh I love the multiple blog posts (Daniel don’t stop!)

We don’t want to insta-Daniel?

I’ve been in the horror of public policy studies for so long now that I forget what non-wonkish discourse reads like.

And besides, If I in Singapore, can latch onto the really “commentable” posts and try to light a fire, then anyone can.

One day we will get there, and those of us who aren’t screened (based I assume on our previous erudition) can lord it over the newbies.

Finally, there’s some excitement to it to……almost like a carnival game.

And finally! NO DANIEL…the Stuarts were crypto-Catholics (and finally poped! hence the glorious revolution) so they were not indeed on the “same side”.

For a greater explanation I refer you to Andrew Cusack’s “Elizbeth: Usurper, Tyrant, Heretic” Facebook page!

Ultimate comment before I get on yet another plane!!! and unlike my previous flight, I won’t enjoy the sublime serenity of Singapore Airlines, but the indignity of Southwest AIrlines…….

Daniel seems very responsive to corrections on his history and/or politics!

But jeesh, can’t we do something about the angelized greek text?!?!? it is so distracting to those of us who slaved (not entirely succesfully) over our lexicons for four brutal years.

Errrr…by two families did you mean Clinton-Bush? Then yes, they are indeed related and certainly on the same side, so no correction needed.

Also, Henry VII was the founder of the Tudor House, and there was never any suggestion that he was anything other than a faithful son of the (Roman) Church. As for Henry VIII, he was awarded the title “Defender of the Faith” by the pontiff for his opposition to Protestantism. Admittedly, there was some later unpleasntness…

Somehow in my last comment, I forgot Mary Tudor. You don’t get more Papist than her.

And of course Mary and Ann Stuart were sound Protestants.

Cohen would have done better with the Houses of Bourbon, Bonaparte and Orleans.