The NR challenge
I'm taking a break at a continuing legal education program where I'm fulfilling the requirement of the Minnesota rules to get my mind right by taking two hours on "the elimination of bias" in the legal profession. It's a program on alcoholism and addiction in the legal profession. Is there bias against alcholics in the profession? Not so far as I can tell, and not much bias of any other kind either, except perhaps of the kind that expresses itself as disdain for conservatives and Republicans.
I note that the editors of National Review have challenged the editors of the Wall Street Journal to a debate on the merits of the proposed immigration bill. NR writes:
We hereby challenge the Journal’s editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing — two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate’s consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).NR asks: Will the editors of the Wall Street Journal come out of the shadows? In addition to the question of civic instruction involved here, I think there is a question of honor raised as well. Surely the editors of the Journal will rise to the challenge. Right?It shouldn’t be a problem for the Journal’s editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren’t “rational” on the question, have no arguments, and are “foaming at the mouth,” as they explained in a videotaped session of one of their editorial meetings last week. Click here to watch — you have to see it to believe it.
UPDATE: Our friend Hugh Hewitt offers his three-hour show as a venue here.
To comment on this post, go here.
