Monday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Hmm, wishful thinking? That is, “that mass killings are remembered by history is a critical factor in deterring or enabling future perpetrators for enacting similar atrocities.” Cite? Evidence? Furthermore evidence that a “house bill” will have anything to do with “how anything is remembered” is to assume an inflated view of the effect of symbolic legislative actions (hint: nobody notices nor cares). More here.
  2. Mr Obama and the left on the show trials.
  3. Grandstanding (and a gymnast years later).
  4. Panic and thought.
  5. Green and profit.
  6. I have “100% consistency” on that morality exam. (YNNN YNYN were my answers for what its worth).
  7. Big box.
  8. To the sun.
  9. Letters evolving.
  10. Heh.
  11. Insincerity and the White House.
  12. On Iran.
  13. Somebody named Mr Chait admits do being amazingly dense.
  14. Min. wage and unemployment.

2 responses to “Monday Highlights

  1. # I have “100% consistency” on that morality exam. (YNNN YNYN were my answers for what its worth).

    I also have 100% consistency, but I answered NNNN YYYY. The only one I had trouble with was #6 Should the fat man be pushed onto the track? I’m still not sure about it. It clearly is nearly identical with #5 except that it’s more personal, but I can’t see why that would figure in.

    Funny that the liberal Democrat and passionate anti-torture advocate should answer N to number 1 while the conservative Republican answers Y.

    Other thoughts:

    – The quiz maker does not appear to differentiate between “X is moral” and “you are morally obligated to do X.” This is an important distinction.

    – “Happiness” is far too vague a word. I would obviously choose to save an innocent man’s life even if it made a thousand innocent people “unhappy” but I would not save that man’s life if it made a thousand innocent people dead.

    Letters evolving.

    Heretic! My teachers taught me that Hebrew was the first language and that everybody spoke it until the Tower of Babel. Since when do you take the word of historians over theologians?!?

  2. JA,
    “Heretic” and “history over theologians.” … that attitude must be problematic when faced with the existence of people like Fr. Polkinghorn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>