Thursday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Mr Obama promised to fight earmarks. Oops. A little on some of the earmarks in the latest spending … thing.
  2. Mr Obama spoke critically of Mr Bush’s use of signing statements calling them an abuse of power … waits less than 2 months to follow suit.
  3. The Christian carnival is up.
  4. Science and stem cells, two comparable views, here and here, both from supporters of the research.
  5. Underground in Russia.
  6. A second decalogue.
  7. With the economic woes, the gap between rich and poor shrinks yet oddly enough the cheers of those who think that’s important have been mighty quiet on that front.
  8. Modesty and the economy.
  9. Another author to investigate.
  10. A film as well?
  11. Dr and Mr J&H + Tinkerbell?
  12. Signs and portents.
  13. Those type of people” in heaven?
  14. A faith journey, part one of an interview.
  15. Stinking liar!
  16. A generation speaks?
  17. Considering the Frum/Limbaugh matter (and a little pot/kettle action).
  18. A list.
  19. A real Iron Man.
  20. Is Mr Putin a hero of the global warming crowd?
  21. Bailouts and salary caps … and Academe?
  22. Mr Biden remains clueless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    Bailouts and salary caps … and Academe?

    I think our friend Megan gets confused too easily. Businesses and Academics are in a different mental buckets because they are in different buckets. Academies are a luxury a properous society is able to enjoy. Yes it is possible to have education for profit but traditionally (tradition here going back several thousand years to the time of Plato and before) it is a luxury good. Unlike some luxury goods, consumption of it produces a nice civilizing effect on society but a luxury good nonetheless.

    Businesses are not a luxury good, they are a necessity. If tomorrow my state discovered it had an unexpected surplus of $500m many people would come up with various ideas on what to do with it. I doubt anyone would say “Let’s start AIG”. Businesses are supposed to be providing prosperity for society, not consuming it. When a business tells society that they must give it billions of dollars or else the world will blow up, a salary cap on the top people who run it is hardly an outrageous injustice.

  2. Boonton says:

    “Considering the Frum/Limbaugh matter (and a little pot/kettle action). ”

    So are we allowed to criticize either Frum or Limbaugh or is that unethical inhibition of their free speech? Are these two leaders or entertainers? If the later, why is National Review discussing their arguments?

  3. With the economic woes, the gap between rich and poor shrinks yet oddly enough the cheers of those who think that’s important have been mighty quiet on that front.

    Your tone has been getting more and more dismissive and sarcastic lately. Do you honestly believe that people concerned about the gap between rich and poor want to solve that by having billionaires lose money into the ether? Obviously you don’t. So what’s with the snark?

    Is Mr Putin a hero of the global warming crowd?

    Is Mr Hitler a hero of the vegetarian crowd? Seriously, this question is idiotic.

  4. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I’m confused by your question regarding Frum/Limbaugh. Are you referring to our other discussion? In which case, are you the President? If not you “are allowed.” Are these two leaders? No. Frum is a “pundit”, a professional journalist writing political commentary. Limbaugh is a entertainer who’s topic is mostly entertainment. Why is NRO commenting? They comment on practically everything from cinema, current events, and so on.

    JA,
    On rich/poor matter, on the other blog these links get posted (Stones Cry Out) a frequent commenter there has had some (odd to me) remarks regarding a liberal Baptist notion called “Biblical Economics,” which strikes me as quite a bit along the “sustainable” living and a quite agrarian point of view. So, there are people who want not just the rich to be poorer, but that everyone should be (basically) poorer than the poor are in the States today. Additionally, those who just want the “gap” between the two reduced clearly want the rich poorer. They just want that wealth to fall into the hands of the poor raising their estate and not evaporate. Yet … I really do wonder about how they would respond if the rich got poorer with their wealth “vanishing into the ether” if it wasn’t also accompanied by the poor getting hit as well. My guess it that many would be just peachy with that.

  5. Boonton says:

    So, there are people who want not just the rich to be poorer, but that everyone should be (basically) poorer than the poor are in the States today.

    Can you name two that we would know from semi-regular reading of mainstream magazines, news shows and newspapers?

    They just want that wealth to fall into the hands of the poor raising their estate and not evaporate. Yet … I really do wonder about how they would respond if the rich got poorer with their wealth “vanishing into the ether” if it wasn’t also accompanied by the poor getting hit as well.

    There are people who enjoy it, sometimes, when wealth evaporates. I think that’s a very human emotion. Wealth makes our lives a lot easier and 99.9% of us couldn’t give up wealth. But it has long been obvious that wealth is a bit like sugar. It tastes great but it causes a lot of rotting at the same time. There is a meme that the financial crash has been a ‘splash in the face’, or as Winston Churchill said about the 1929 crash “finance must be humbled”.

    From a religious perspective, I think you can see some merit in the occassional ‘humbling’ that happens when bubbles collapse. There are always some people who are just begging for the universe to set them up for a fall and I agree there is a bit of pleasure in seeing it happen. I don’t think that’s a left-right thing, though, but a human thing.

  6. Mark,

    Okay, yes, there are of course some people who want the rich to just lose their money into the ether. There are some people who want beautiful women to drop dead of the plague, too. But you tried to conflate those people with the people concerned about the gap between the rich and the poor in order to make the latter group look bad. Don’t be disingenuous.