Monday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. The freedom of letting go.
  2. Anti-semetic and philosemetic and some 19th century literature.
  3. There will be a second round. Jah, we knew that.
  4. Concerning a particularly useful invention.
  5. On SSM.
  6. Bitter-sweet customs.
  7. What is democracy … a global view.
  8. A ghastly city, perhaps that will put an end to romanticising the native American culture.
  9. An early road map.
  10. This sort of begs an important question. How do people think they can do climate prediction if solar output varys and we don’t understand how or why?
  11. He may “have a point”, just not the one you think he has. When you read, “The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition.” I think one could transplant objections and responses to objections over the Iraq war directly into this sentiment. Yet, I figure few on the left thought their objections were “cynical efforts to gain partisan political advantage”. There’s a lesson here.
  12. In that line of thought, an exercise for the left. Replace the words “Obama” with “Bush” in this article and what would be your response.
  13. If this idea becomes the norm, will publishing in a “reject” journal satisfy degree requirements?
  14. This notion on healthcare that everyone without insurance wants it that way is problematic.
  15. Where the left’s version of the birther inanity is showing up.
  16. Syriac study resources.
  17. Religion and Egypt.
  18. On Darwin and ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


  1. adam says:

    Thanks for the link.

    It is funny to me that you would equate the birther movement (based on nothing factual) with the observation of markers that historically littered the road to fascism.

    A more apt comparison would have been a link to this regarding something akin to the birther movement.

  2. Mark says:

    And you’re completely comfortable with the truther movement?

    And it’s odd that you point to the tea party movement as a “marker” littering the road to fascism when one your side one finds the “if they hit us we’ll hit them twice as hard” remarks … and that the side currently in control of the establishment.

    I think you need to sweep out your own Aegean stables.

  3. adam says:

    So, my linking to one article that observes fascist tendencies in a particular group or movement is an implication that I deny fascist tendencies in any other?

    My side?

    There is a lot of assumption on your part that I am as partisan as you seem to think I am. Just because I vote for or support an initial position doesn’t mean I can’t be disappointed, angry, or frustrated when it is hijacked or dirtied or otherwise abridged, which seems to be the case with most politicians.

    I was merely pointing out that there is no evidence (none that I’ve seen anyhow) to support a case for the birther movement while there are compelling arguments and evidence to support a theory that there is a growing number of people with fascist tendencies. Granted, I’m just as unhappy as anyone with the overuse of the Hitler comparison and I was disappointed with it’s flippant use in the article I linked, but leaving that and some other gratuitous language aside, I found it to be an interesting, if somewhat frightening,theory. That is all. You won’t find me at a townhall trying to shout down a speaker with phrases like, “Republicans are all fascists!!”

  4. Mark says:

    As for “evidence” (none to support a case) and so on. I think the truther/birther graph I linked this morning makes my point.

    I think claiming “Republicans are all X” where X isn’t some generic statement like “human” is prone to exaggeration.

    I don’t think there is currently enough anger out there from either party to propel a totalitarian movement into power from either side of the aisle. However, viewed from my side, I’d judge that anger is something the left is more prone to today than the right.

  5. adam says:

    It certainly makes a point. Probably the strongest point it makes is that someone is willing to give foundation to the argument, “They believe something stupid, so I should get to believe something stupid.” It certainly does nothing to lend any credence to either of the ideas.

    I’ll thank you for your subjective anecdotal observations and judgments about who is more angry (whatever kind of anger you’re talking about, I’m not certain) and I’ll thank you for the link and traffic.

    Next time, stop by and have a conversation instead of the dismissive swipe of a link. You’re always welcome to the discussion.