Known Plaintext

Right now, the car to beat is a Nissan Altima 3.5 SR. Two hundred seventy horses under the hood and a genuinely comfortable, roomy ride. Took a 2.5 for a brief spin with three other people in the car, and the consensus from the passengers was that it was roomy, comfortable, with plenty of leg room in the back. I deliberately avoided test driving the 3.5, because I figured once I felt two hundred seventy horses I’d have the Devil’s own time saying no to it.

The 3.5 SR is being waved under my nose for a whisker under $24K, incl. tax, title, tags, license, the whole nine yards.

Tell me, O Internets. Whisper your sweet nothings of counsel into my ear. Yea or nay?

(And yes, yes, there will be no final decision before I’ve given the 3.5 SR a solid test.)

Lawfare is a blog that has an incredibly difficult beat to cover: the intersection of the law and national security. It’s the sort of thing that lots of people like to comment on, and generally do it very badly.

Lawfare’s contributors have sterling academic credentials, from senior fellows at the Brookings Institute to Harvard Law professors. Although each author brings their own ideological baggage to their writing (as we all do), I would consider them to be adept at recognizing their baggage and pointing it out when necessary.

Lawfare has an article up, “Seven Errors in Today’s New York Times Editorial,” which ought to be required reading for anyone who thinks the newspaper industry in this country is capable of making informed commentary on the intersection of law and national security. It’s worth reading. Read it, read the original editorial that precipitated it, and ask yourself: do you pay any attention to the mainstream media’s (generally uninformed) editorializing? If so, do you want to change that?