Skip to content

Thursday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Obama. Standing for evil in the name of expediency? (more here) And … his plans may need to be scrapped anyhow.
  2. From the center/left on the Letterman/Palin kerfuffle.
  3. The BRIC countries.
  4. Considering Lewis and the Abolition of Man.
  5. About that Ernest fellow.
  6. Some unsolicited suggestions for cycling teams seeking sponsorship.
  7. White House kremlinology.
  8. Not on board.
  9. Americorp notes.
  10. Death and dying. Here too.
  11. For me this recalled Mr Moorcock’s Cure for Cancer. 
  12. Talking shop on asymmetric warfare.
  13. Private vs public insurance … and a point often missed.
  14. The comfort of myth … although why nobody connects that myth with the myths that the Islamic middle east powers hold which Obama repeated in his Cairo speech … is a mystery.
  15. Too bad the obvious alternative to “too big to fail” is not on the table, i.e., if you get that big … you get broken up.
  16. Of protest and information.
  17. Two Saints who made just a little impact on the course of history.
  18. Russia and population demographics.
  19. A good question.

Posted in Link Roundup.

1 comment

By Mark – June 18, 2009

One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. JewishAtheist says

    Obama. Standing for evil in the name of expediency? (more here) And … his plans may need to be scrapped anyhow.

    WTF? How is he “standing for evil?”

    # From the center/left on the Letterman/Palin kerfuffle.

    What Letterman did was terrible. It’s got nothing to do with right/left except that Palin is a Republican and some of her followers are seizing on this as a way to smear “the enemy” (i.e. liberals.) I doubt many of them complained about John McCain’s “joke” about Chelsea Clinton back in the 90s.

    Considering Lewis and the Abolition of Man.

    Speaking of Lewis, hilzoy points to a great quote of his in response to the claim that leftists get excited when American soldiers are killed:

    Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred,

    I’d say that’s just as relevant to your claim that liberals were rooting for us to lose in Iraq. (And, to be fair, it’s also relevant to my sometimes over-generalizations about conservatives, Republicans, and theists.)

    A good question.

    Ugh, really? The problem with subprime mortgages to minorities was not that they were both subprime and overvalued by ratings agencies, but that the borrowers were minorities? I expect that from Sailer (when all you’ve got is a hammer…) but not from you.

    June 18, 2009, 10:56



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.

« »